I was talking to a civil engineer friend of mine today. I asked him what he knew about the vulnerability of underground facilities, such as those rumoured to be under construction in Iran as part of their nuclear programme. He told me that one does not need to go that deep underground to make such facilities impervious even to a surface level nuclear strike. The flipside is that once you get inside the underground caverns, it is fairly simple to demolish them. If Iran’s nuclear programme is made up of significant subterranean facilities, any effort to end the programme using military means will require a ground offensive of some kind. A concerted air offensive is not going to be enough – bodies on the ground will be necessary to infiltrate and destroy the facilities.
Assuming the intelligence about Iran’s underground laboratories is correct, thoroughly disarming Iran will require more than the easy solution we saw used against Serbia in 1998/99. It remains to be seen whether the United States has the stomach for another ground war in the Middle East – a war they would probably fight alone or in concert with Israel as a (very) junior partner. Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that some are questioning American resolve on the issue. Unfortunately, the possibility of Iran successfully acquiring nuclear weapons is far from remote.
I’m not sure I agree. There are some very deep penetration (oh er missus) weapons out there.
Certainly there were. The WWII RAF Grand Slam and the US Pershing II IRBM would’ve fitted the bill.
Crack and Burn – punch a hole through the roof and follow up with FAE.
There are always ways and means.
How deep can they penetrate? A couple of dozen metres at most? Even that?
There are always ways and means, but the way you mentioned may well be impossible if the Iranians have burrowed deep enough.
Grand Slam,
against the Valentin submarine pens near Bremen two Grand Slams penetrated 4 to 7 meters of reinforced concrete. – Wikipedia
That’s before exploding. I seem to recaall the bombs were dropped from over 20,000 ft and were supersonic (spin-stabilised) on impact. The bombs weighed 10 tons.
Nothing too specific on the Pershing II, but…
From http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/earthpenetrating-weapons.html
For example, an earth penetrating weapon using the 1.2 megaton B83 warhead—the highest yield weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—could crush underground bunkers to a depth of about 1000 feet. Deeper bunkers can be constructed with modern tunneling equipment, and are essentially invulnerable to nuclear attack.
I can’t imagine the Iranians are capable of building bunkers large enough for all the kit neede to enrich Uranium at that sort of depth. I suspect it would be financiall and technically challenging for anyone.
I doubt it very much. There is enough disquiet over Iraq. Do they even have the money to waste on a war that would cost at least as much as the hideously expensive Iraqi venture?
For sure. Nobody else is going to join them on that one.
That’s utterly insane. There is no way America is going to have Israel joining them in an invasion of a Moslem country. If you recall, in 1991 America exerted stupendous political and diplomatic effort to keep Israel out of the war even after the Scud missile attacks on the country.
If you were looking for a sure-fire way to unite the Arab countries of the Middle East, indeed to unite the whole Moslem world against America and the west, you’ve found it.
EG
EG,
Iran having nukes is unaccaptable. The consequences of doing anything effective (hitting them hard militarily) is going to rile a hornets nest of Camel Jockeys from Morroco to Malaysia. It’s not good but anything is better than that nutjob having his finger on the trigger.
If you’ve got a better solution, please inform.
So was North Korea having nuclear weapons. Ho hum. Now they’ve got them, America’s gone all quiet about it, precisely because there is no longer anything it can really do other than wait for the Korean regime to collapse.
The nuclear genie is long since out of the bottle, and he won’t go back inside. The principles of making simple fission weapons are well known and this type of nuclear weapon is now within the reach of any suitably determined state that has the money to pursue uranium enrichment. Even if it has to do everything itself, the mistakes have already been made by others and the path to follow is clear enough.
Insisting that Iran (or anyone else you happen not to like) must not have nuclear weapons is farting against thunder. It’s way too late to prevent nuclear proliferation, but it’s good to know most countries aren’t particularly interested in having a nuclear capability.
You’re missing the strategic dimension. For Iran, as I said on the thread below, the probability of them actually launching a nuclear attack against Israel or the west in miniscule, for perfectly good reasons of realpolitik. For America … well:
Current American involvement in the ME is based around several pressing needs. Looking behind the rhetoric of democracy, liberty and the pursuit of halal apple pie, we see a nation in need of securing a source (not the only source) of energy supply, realising that it will not forever, and perhaps not for much longer, have the economic and strategic muscle to get its way and consequently in dire need of creating a ME order more in line with its own desires and doing this NOW while it still can.
The global strategic situation is untenable, since there is no effective balance of power and no alternative in the form of, say, a powerful and effective UN. This will not last long, a balance will assert itself (or, much less likely, the UN will become effective), and then America may not be in a position to do so much about things. Hence the need to shape the world the way it wants while it can do so, and hence the need to talk up the threat of Iran and perhaps even try to engineer confrontation before it’s too late. This is, of course, dressed up in the diplomatic language of spreading liberty and democracy, which is a crock – it’s all about protecting America’s strategic interests.
There’s nothing wrong with that, all states have the same logic. But let’s just be honest about it.
EG
Nick – a country with the engineering capability required to make an atomic bomb can build a large and deep underground bunker. I believe the Nazis built such chambers in World War II for armaments production – enormous bloody things.
In regards to the expense – the major cost of constructing these kinds of subterranean structures is attributed to labour. I doubt that’s a major problem given the labour market conditions found in Iran today.
Talk to them. Tell them they’ll get a free hand in the region provided they don’t actually do anything to Israel and they keep selling the oil.
At the same time, talk to their internal opponents. Try to find sensible ones. Weaken their grip by encouraging internal discord. Try not to get caught doing this – find someone to use as a catspaw, perhaps the (banned) Iranian Communist Party. Use influence from the other Caspian countries.
At the same time (you’ll be busy), talk to their external rivals in the other Moslem states nearby. Sow a little discord there, encourage them to squabble a little amongst themselves and question Iranian regional power.
This way, you get better relations with the regime at the same time as encouraging alternatives and by promoting external confusion you weaken Iran’s ability to chuck its weight around in any direction that you might not like. You’re covering most of your bases adequately, which is better (and cheaper) than dominating only one utterly.
EG
EG,
Well absolutely. We should support dissidents in Iran. Goes without saying. There’s a lot of good folks there who’d quite like to live in a more liberal (and therefore safer) country. I’d think more than twice about using the commies. That could end up being “out of the frying pan an into the fire”.
I don’t see how getting their neighbours agitated would help – neighbours round there are usually at a fever-pitch of agitation anyway – it is their natural state.
There is one thing we could do, if they had an even slightly less insane president. We could try detent and strengthen economic ties, exchange students and that kinda thing. If the citizenry see that dealing with the west helps their dire economic situation they might look more kindly on us.
I’ve often wondered about breaking down Islamism by culture bombing them. Exposing them as much as possible to Western influences.
There is one vital thing we could, perhaps, exploit (though I don’t know how). Unlike many middle-east countries, Iran is a proper country with a long history as an entity. Iranians are very nationalistic. Countrly the prez is working this angle very well. Could we steal his thunder?
One thing I strongly do disagree with you on is allowing them a “free hand in the region”. They’ll have grabbed Shia Iraq before you can say “Allah Ackbar!”. They’ll then put the frightners on Kuwait so it becomes a client state. This will give them control of too much oil and give them an excellent strategic position to control the Gulf sealanes.
The problem with softly softly approaches like this, is you never know what you’re gonna get. We might even make things worse.
The difference between the Norks and Iran is that the Norks have a big, antsy neighbor on one side monitoring them very closely. China’s not stupid enough to let the Norks try anything funny, because they know their head’s on the chopping block too.
Iran, on the other hand, has no such check on its ambitions.
Bang on Wobbly Guy. The PRC really don’t want a nasty war in Korea screwing up their economic plans.
Unlikely. Communism is a far more rational creed than Islamism, and one can at least talk to communists on an equal footing of reality. Afghanistan should probably have taught you that, no? Anyway, the probability of a communist government in Iran is extremely slim, but then you’re not necessarily looking for a potential government, more a catspaw for trouble-making.
I agree. Also, it helps to show them that we are not evil Zionist Crusaders, and it might encourage some equally blinkered loonies here to see that they aren’t all part of some Giant Islamic Conspiracy to take over the world and infect our precious bodily fluids.
But to do that, you need to back off on the rhetoric about nuking them back to the Stone Age. America has never been particularly good at subtlety in the diplomatic sphere, but now would be a good time to try. The problem is, though, that it takes time and there aren’t any instant fixes (within e.g. a single presidential term of office). You need patience.
As I pointed out quite some time ago and have had cause to repeat since, one of the likely consequences of the removal of Saddam (i.e. the removal of a powerful central government) is that Iraq will very probably fragment into Shia, Sunni and Kurd regions, reflecting the makeup of the areas and indeed its history as three provinces of the Ottoman Empire.
And, mirabile dictu, such appears now to be happening – told you so. Naturally, Iran will wish to control Shia Iraq, Saudi Arabia the Sunni area, and either Turkey will control the Kurds, or there will be an independent Kurdistan, or some of the other Turkic ex-Soviet territories might get interested.
Let it happen, it’s a natural order for the region.
EG
But to do that, you need to back off on the rhetoric about nuking them back to the Stone Age.
Sure. Just as soon as they stop referring to the US as “The Great Satan” and chanting “Death to America”.
It works both ways, Euan.
But they’ve got to do it your way first, right?
That also works both ways.
EG
Worse than a nuclear exchange in one of the most important strategic areas of the world? Worse than a ruinously expensive war which would only unite the Moslem world against the west?
EG
Worse than a nuclear exchange in one of the most important strategic areas of the world? Worse than a ruinously expensive war which would only unite the Moslem world against the west?
Wrong. A decisive first strick would be just that, decisive.
Wrong. Unite Sonny and Cher – not a chance. More chance of the Beatles reforming with their original line-up.
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be. However, I think it’s a strange outlook on things to consider that lobbing nuclear bombs around the Middle East is better than trying to avoid a war by talking to people.
You’re the one that’s wrong if you think an American assault on Iran – however decisive – would not unite the world against the west, and certainly against America.
EG
At the same time, talk to their internal opponents. Try to find sensible ones. Weaken their grip by encouraging internal discord.
Good point, and I doubt anyone actually would disagree, Euan. Interestingly, during the Cold War, there was a pretty determined effort by the U.S. and, er, most of its NATO allies to do such things, such as Radio Free Europe, formenting propoganda against the Soviets, encouraging various college programmes, and the like. What I’d like to know is why have the Western governments been so crap at doing the same against the ME tyrannies? I suspect the answer is a mixture of inertia and politically correct qualms about saying unpleasant things about radical islam. It remains a bit perplexing, though.
That is the nettle that has not yet been properly grasped by any major leader, possibly with the exception of Australian PM John Howard, who seems able to speak his mind in suitably blunt Aussie fashion. Ok, Winston Churchills do not grow on trees, but it would be nice if a major leader could denounce radical islamic theocracies in a systematic way without demonising most Muslims; encourage education programmes, etc. More needs to be done and there are hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians who would be entirely receptive. For starters, they are internet junkies.
I think it’s a strange outlook on things to consider that lobbing nuclear bombs around the Middle East is better than trying to avoid a war by talking to people.
Except for one thing – this war is already on. Read the Mark Steyn article, and consider the wide range of adventurism and aggression the Iranians are already engaged in.
The question isn’t how can we avoid a war. That window closed 27 years ago. The question is how can we prevent the Iranians from using nuclear weapons against their enemies.
Possibly because the various ME tyrannies really aren’t much of a threat to the west, so why bother? The big difference is that the USSR had the potential to wipe out the US as a functioning military and economic power and to occupy western Europe, and it stood directly against the west in the global balance of power. No country in the ME can come remotely close to that. What some can theoretically do is lob some missiles at us, which we can shoot down, or sneak bombs into our country, which frankly anyone can do. It isn’t a major threat.
I think it should be realised that when it comes down to it neither America nor Britain nor any other western country really gives a damn about spreading liberty and democracy, and we frankly don’t care whether Johnny Foreigner, or Mohammed al-Foreigner, lives in liberty or under the despotic thumb. What we do care about is whether our strategic interests are meaningfully threatened, and if they aren’t we are unlikely to do much about it – life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the imposition of democracy at gunpoint is for public consumption, governments don’t really think like that.
This may appear cynical and squalid, but it’s how power politics works in the real world. If you bear it in mind, many of the sometimes odd diplomatic decisions made by the major powers suddenly become clear as crystal.
They do denounce radical Islamism from time to time, and they take pains to make clear that this doesn’t include the average Moslem. Unfortunately, when they do this they face not only the criticism of the extremists, who call them racist, but the criticism of the home-made zealots who call them sell-outs, weasels, traitors and dhimmis. They can’t win – one side wants them to adopt Sharia, the other wants them to expel anyone who prays on a Friday. So, since whatever they do they get criticised, and since the threat is not as grave as the propaganda makes out, they don’t do it as often or as clearly as they perhaps might.
This is one of the reasons I find the more spectacularly paranoid hysteria stridently expressed around here on the subject somewhat counterproductive and, frankly, stupid.
EG
EG has come down from the mountain with truth on stone tablets!
If he thinks the ability to lob a nuke or smuggle one into a western city isn’t a bloody big threat then God knows what he considers a real threat – The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, Verity’s rants, the End of the Universe?
And Euan, you’re far from being the only one here who appreciates that foreign policy is dictated more by strategic interests than trying to do nice things for people in far off lands.
It’s not big enough or credible enough to justify a pre-emptive war.
There are a few around here who seem to actually believe the line about promoting liberty and democracy aronud the world.
EG
Nick M wrote,
In Iraq Saddam’s main nuclear facility was spread over a 40 mile by 40 mile zone. You could undoubtedly take out the surface structures but would you be able to gurantee that you had indeed removed any and all of the subsurface works?
With the possible exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons are just never the answer, unless you really do want the Shia and Sunnis unified against the West.
Rational Communists? Muslim fanatics who can be deterred by “talking”? What world is EG living in?
No country in the ME can come remotely close to that. What some can theoretically do is lob some missiles at us, which we can shoot down, or sneak bombs into our country, which frankly anyone can do. It isn’t a major threat.
Hmmm, not sure I will shrug my shoulders in that way, Euan. If a nutjob with hatred of Jews decides to turn Tel Aviv into glass, even if that involves killing a lot of Muslims in the process, then I firmly predict that this will be a problem for the West, most definitely. Radical islam is an evangelical, totalitarian ideology that wants to take over the whole planet. The whole ball of wax.
Go and read the Mark Steyn article in City Journal that James linked to the other day and ask yourself if Iran is some sort of “far off country of which we know little”, to quote Neville Chamberlain.
It is one thing to be realistic about the likely benefits/hazards of a military strike against Iranian military/nuke facilities, another to poo-poo the threat of such a nation, as the rather silly Simon Jenkins tends to do these days.
With the possible exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons are just never the answer, unless you really do want the Shia and Sunnis unified against the West.
A thorough strategic nuking of Iran would be a very final answer to the threat(s) now posed by Iran.
And I think you can be pretty sure that the example of several million dead Iranians, and the apparent willingness to add Syrians, Palestinians, Libyans, Egyptians, or Saudis to that tally as necessary, would buy us at least a generation of peace from the rest of the Muslim world.
I just hope there is a way to achieve peace with the Muslim world that does not have such a butcher’s bill. Iranian nuclear weapons make it less, not more, likely that we will do so.
A thorough strategic nuking of Iran would be a very final answer to the threat(s) now posed by Iran.
It would be the final answer indeed, since it would start a chain of events that would cause a collapse of the United States. Nuking Iran would bring worldwide condemnation, sparking massive boycotts of American products and severe economic sanctions against the American economy. Moreover, the nuking of Iran would cause a serious disruption to oil production, sending oil well over $100/barrel, maybe as high as $150/barrel. Combine boycotts, sanctions, $100+/barrel oil with an economy that is drowning in corporate, personal, and government debt, teetering on the edge of a housing bubble, and set to be crushed by senior citizen entitlements, and you have a catastrophic economic collapse – a Greater Depression.
The Great Depression confirmed and extended the replacement of a relatively laissez-faire order with a state corporatist order. With all of the wicked and totalitarian laws already on the books, a Greater Depression would move a increasingly-repressive state corporatist order to outright fascism.
“We must destroy Western Civilisation in order to save it.”
– Josh
All you need is some good old Brit. TALLBOYS. The kind Squadron 617 used on the German Battleship Tirpitz and Saumur Rail. I’ve often wondered why us Americans didn’t use those on Iwo Jima before we landed. They were made to collapse tunnels!
Don’t get me wrong, WP – I’m not saying we should pave Iran as a pre-emptive attack.
I was merely responding to the notion that nuking Iran wouldn’t have any real effect. I don’t advocate doing so as a first strike, but as retaliation for Iran nuking someone first (which is all too likely), I think it is one of the few things we could do that doesn’t boil down to “doing nothing.”
And if Iran escalates its 27 year pattern of aggression to include use of nuclear weapons, I suspect our putting them down and out will alleviate, not accelerate, global economic and security problems.
Yes, it would be. The real question is just how likely is that?
Although I read some of his articles, I don’t rely on Steyn for analysis of global affairs. Or indeed much of anything. I find him to be a rather tiresome obssessive on the subject of Islamism and how we’re all doomed, to be frank.
I have read the linked article, and would say only that the things he finds distinctive or even unique about Iran could also be applied to the USSR. Interestingly enough, Steyn even notes that the Europe goes “all Kremlinological” about Iran’s government, but doesn’t seem to ask himself why this should be. He perhaps should. He has an ideological point of view, and clearly has difficulty seeing the world other than through his dogmatic Polaroid lenses – it’s more complex than his simplistic and somewhat paranoid analyses suggest.
However, he does press all the right neo-con buttons, which seems to work for the “libertarians” here who are only really libertarian when it comes to their tax bill and right to smoke dope.
Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some?
EG
I’m coming round to the view that a preemptive strike against Iran would have to involve ground troops. That’s not to say a land invasion, but airborne troops might have to go in an destroy these undergound facilities. It would be nice if everything could be done by B2 bombers, but that might not be possible.
In the same way, it may be necessary to seize the Straits of Hormuz to ensure free passage of shippping.
I would think that the chance of America using nukes is very small. The Americans considered that option in Korea and Vietnam, but each time concluded that it was really not viable.
Personally I consider the US has every right to act against both Iraq and Iran, because they are both hostile powers. If Iran were not pusuing a plan to build an A bomb contrary to the NPT, and if its President were not a holocaust denier who publicly states he wants to wipe out Israel, then Iran would not be having this problem. Rogue states like Iran have got to realise that their actions have consequences. If they want to build an A bomb then they are raising the stakes, and they will have to be made to pay. Out of the 200 odd nations on earth, only about six are causing trouble. One day they might find out the hard way that they have brought the consequences of that trouble making on themselves.
Were EG alive in 1938 (were you ?) he would have sounded as clever as he sounds now, as in fact many people sounded then: “Go to War over Chechoslovakia ? are you crazy? do you want to kill us all off ? wouldn’t it be better to engage Hitler in talks, and at the same time encourage his opponents, which are many, to get rid of him, and also stirr up those Ruskie commies to cause some trouble ….”, How clever !
We know that doing nothing in difficult situations is the natural impulse of all, and many a rationalization can be found for it.
Now, in hindsight, we know that the 1938 appeasement was a terrible mistake, for which mankind paid an enormous price.
Are all appeasements alike ? Is the Iran situation as dangerous as the Munich one ? It surely looks so, but certain knowledge of the future is beyond our capabilities.
We will find out. Seems that the time honored tradition of doing nothing will be adopted this time too. And the price will be paid too. Let’s hope (agains all evidence) that the price won’t be that disastrous !
If I were religious I’d say: lets pray. I don’t thing something else will be done.
Wild Pegasus: Collapse of the U.S ?! Please. If there is a collapse of the U.S economy then there is a collapse of the entire world economy, get it? It would be like slicing your own wrists. No one would do it for a two bit third world nation with a evil government. Nice try, think again.
Jacob got in before me.
EG underestimates the threat Iran poses. Yes, they are a relatively poor country, but militarily, if a country decides to go the whole hog on it can punch above it’s own weight.
While I’d like to see a peaceful solution to all this, based around encouraging the discontents in Iran to do something. I don’t think we have time for that now.
The safest solution is to nuke them first. Nuclear weapons are not qualitavely different from conventional, just more bang, much more.
Two thought experiments.
You’re armed and someone has threaten you, they have theirr gun pointed at you and are loading, do you shot first, or wait?
You have a nuclear weapon in the mid-30s. Do you take out a Nuremburg rally and wipe out the Nazi high command? Would that be moral as a first strike?
The big difference between the USSR and Iran is that a first strike is feasible because Iran doesn’t have the nukes yet and they are generally weaker. Sympathy for an underdog is totally misplaced here. Hit them repeatedly over a period of time until they capitulate utterly and agree to become a secular state or overthrow the government. If they don’t do either, destroy the country utterly.
This is exactly what one might expect from a middle-class loungeroom warrior … “I bloody say, we might have to sacrifice a few regiments of our Special Forces, but what’s that compared to the greater threat, eh, eh? Don’t forget that these chappies signed up to die for their country.” Now remind us how a pre-emptive nuclear strike would need ground troops – to guide in the Trident maybe?
In other words the sort of comment that makes me want to puke in disdain.
Well said, Julian.
Guide in the Trident, I like. “Left a bit, no not that much, Oh Bugg…”
This is exactly what one might expect from a middle-class loungeroom warrior
So who the fuck are you then, Colonel Kurtz?
In other words the sort of comment that makes me want to puke in disdain.
You can pebble dash your bathroom for all I care, but if you think the USA would ever launch a preemptive nuclear strike you are living in a fantasy world. If ground troops are needed to destroy those bunkers, then that’s just what would have to be done. That’s what you have special forces for.
I love the smell of a fight in the morning.
That vitriolic smell. It smells like… victory.
Some day this thread is gonna end, son.
Scre it, it should been
smells like… samizdata
Bugger.
Euan Grey, are you challening the spirit of Neville Chamberlain? Hell, why not give the Iranians the Sudenenland too? What could be more reasonable than that to win peace in our time?
Contemptible twats like Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joseph Biden and the pathetic Dennis Kucinich can at least be identified as those who accepted ME Islamist cash for their souls. To read the drivel above about how we must just sit idly by while the End Times nut cases in Tehran pine to make Iran a suicide nation, makes me think that there are more than a couple Mohammeds and Husseins behind those Anglo sounding pen names. Either that, or those who can’t wait to become Dhimmis.
A decapitaion strike on the nut case leadership, destruction of the Revolutionary guards, military infrastructure, missle depots, launch facilities, etc. with some bunker busting can be done without nukes. You can destroy the access facilities, power, etc. to deeply buried facilities and they are as good as destroyed.
To wait and wring our hands about all the potential down side is much worse than taking firm action sooner rather than later. The muslim street hates us anyway and so did the Germans and Japanese during WW2, so WTF?
For over fifty years, the US has maintained a “tripwire” force in South Korea to deter aggression from the North. Given that there has been no attack, this policy has worked.
As the NK’s lunatic regime slowly deterriorates, and the Chinese move away from ideology toward economic integration with the rest of the world, it is only a matter of time until the NK regime folds in upon itself, much like the East German zombie did when its patron abandoned it, and the reunification will occur apace, under appropriate supervision by China and the US, among others.
Look at a map. I don’t think very many people ever do.
The most deadly, experienced, high tech, armored, dominant air superiority, dominent naval superiority military force in the world is gradually disengaging itself from continuous action in Iraq, and turning many of its duties regarding security over to the Iraqi forces it has trained and will continue to oversee.
If the Iranians are lunatic enough to attack Israel, or US forces in the ME, then either the Israelis or the US could move through the outmoded and obsolete Iranian defenses much like the US did in GW1 or GW2.
And, unlike Iraq, there would be no requirement for the Western forces to be restricted as to targets, nor would the restaint against collateral damage apply as strongly.
Will we preempt. I don’t think so, not given the current state of political and economic considerations that must be recognized.
But, and this is something so many of the “antis” have never understood, Iran declared war on the US in 1979. The tripwire is now in place. Iraq is stratiegic, a desirable location to fight a battle for, and from, in the context of a larger war.
Any attack by Iran would signal the beginning of the only “exit strategy” that has ever made any sense for US forces in Iraq—directly through Tehran.
It would be well for the mystic lunatic in charge of the mullahs’ state to quit having visions and begin a serious consultation with a few spirits who could actually give him some good advice. I recommend Yamamoto, Robert Lee, Mussolini, Rommel, and, especially, Hirohito.
Then the mullahs could get some pointers on enduring the unendurable. They’ll need it.
Every time I hear the world will stop America, the world will not allow America, I piss myself laughing. And just what is the world going to do to stop her? The Arabs are going to do what? Stop selling oil? What will fold faster, a US Naval blockade of their ports or their blocking sales of oil? The mighty EU is going to do what? Boycott American goods? Go for it, just remember the door swings both ways. Consider what would happen to the EU if America were to boycott the EU. Who would be the bigger looser?
China and Japan are going to stop selling to the US?
The Iranians have crossed the line. When they openly state they are going to burn a country off the face of the earth simply because they can’t abide that countries existence, there is no reasoning or dealing with them except to defang them. The Israeli’s are not going to lay down and die to appease the Muslims, Europeans and the leftist.
They will nuke Iran first if they have to. Better for the US to stop Iran with conventional air strikes than have the Israeli’s backed against the wall. All the weapon factory bunkers don’t have to be destroyed. The key ones will do. Destroy their electrical power grid and refinery infrastructure and they won’t be producing anything least of all weapons. The US Air force is quite capable of doing the job alone without allied air forces. We don’t need to occupy them, all we need to do is destroy their ability to produce anything.
Perhaps if the US would make that message crystal clear the Iranian military might decide the crazies running the country will have to go in order to save their country.
“Perhaps if the US would make that message crystal clear …”
As Euan Grey would say: talk to them. Indeed. Talk to them and say this: ” If you do a false move we will annihilate you.”
No need to specify exactly how. Maybe it can be done without nukes, but, when “talking” to them, the nuke option should not be dissmissed. Let them fear it and it’s implications.
So, I say, by all means, talk to them! Let them not live under the impression we all live under now, that the US is weak, and incapable of any decisive action, that no preemptive strike is imminent.
Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 because he thought the US will do nothing. Let’s make sure, very sure, that the Iranians don’t misunderestimate the US. I hope that the message has been passed through secret channels, but it doesn’t seen the mullahs are getting it.
Iran’s nuclear program is perfectly legal and started in the 1970’s with the full support and encouragement of the US; there is no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran and the IAEA has said so; Iran has offered several compromises that would address the liklihood of diversion of the technology to military uses, only to have the offers dismissed off-hand; the people of Iran massively support their nuclear rights, even the opposition. The only “oppostion” that says otherwise are the terrorist MEK and some elements of the discredited Monarchists, neither of whom have any support in Iran among the people
That’s why yhe Iranians built a massive underground enrichment plant which they kept secret from the IAEA was it? I think you’ll have to tell that story to the Marines. Literally.
Euan Gray:
Let’s dispel this myth: The Iraqi campaign is costing the US about .4% of GDP – mere pocket change at a time when overall military expenditures are near their post-WWII low.
A simplistic and naive assumption if ever there was one. True, an attack on Iran may inflame the “Arab Street”, and Islamic demagogues will play to the crowd, behind closed doors, the leadership of all other nations in the region will likely breath a sigh of relief to know the US is dealing with this most profound regional threat.
Absent these two premises, your subsequent arguments collapse thoroughly.
In any event, those seriously interested in this matter, and not just blowing smoke out of their “arses”, should look into the Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System (HDBTDS) program. The BLU-119 “Bunker Buster” bombs are thought to be a considerable improvement over the old BLU-109s (20′ reinforced concrete penetration vs. 7′).
Further, it should be noted that Iran’s bunker building program is quite recent, and under contract with North Korea, who’s tunneling technology just ain’t that hot.
Oh, also of interest might be “Divine Strake“.
Link doesn’t work. Look, I don’t care how good your bunker busting bomb is, if the cavern is buried more than a few dozen metres underground, it’s impervious to a surface strike. Many large mine shafts run more than two kilometres underground.
Also, building underground caverns (not tunnelling) isn’t such a daunting engineering feat. I see no reason why they would need to enlist the North Koreans for this task – they could easily do it themselves.
Hass – The IAEA discovered Iran’s clandestine weapons programme in (I think) 2002. This was illegal under the NPT. As far as I am concerned, Iran’s duplicitous behaviour has nullified its right to nuclear energy, as it has proven itself to be untrustworthy. Why, for example, did they feel the need to enlist the expertise of Pakistani nuclear weapons expert (and purveyor of nuclear secrets to various unsavoury regimes), Abdul Qadeer Khan? I think you’ll find that the IAEA is not as sanguine as you are regarding Iran’s behaviour. Perhaps you’d care to inform us of the nature of these “several compromises” you mention. And while you’re at it, tell us why anyone would be stupid enough to trust a word the mullahs say.
Look, I don’t care how good your bunker busting bomb is, if the cavern is buried more than a few dozen metres underground, it’s impervious to a surface strike. Many large mine shafts run more than two kilometres underground.
Which is why I think that if the USA is serious, it might need to use special forces to actually get in and destroy these installations.
The IAEA discovered Iran’s clandestine weapons programme in (I think) 2002. This was illegal under the NPT. As far as I am concerned, Iran’s duplicitous behaviour has nullified its right to nuclear energy, as it has proven itself to be untrustworthy.
Quite so. Nobody has a problem with Finland’s nuclear programme do they? Iran is a rogue state which is without doubt trying to obtain nuclear weapons. If they just wanted civil nuclear power they would comply with IAEA inspections and that would be the end of it. That’s why I get annoyed at people bleating about how illegal the Iraq war was. Britain and America didn’t invade Iraq by accident, it was because, for over 15 years, Saddam had run a rogue state which was our avowed enemy. We didn’t invade Sweden, we invaded Iraq, for a reason. Iran is similar, except it has been our avowed enemy for 27 years. These rogue states are going to have to get it clear that if they insist on being our enemy, they will have to learn to live with the inevitable consequences. The people I really despise are the ones who think that if they bury their heads in the sand they won’t get their arses blown off.
Sorry for the bad links:
James: I would posit that you have very little understanding of bunker/countermeasure technology. And I would suspect that most commenters here are in the same position, which is why I posted the information. Also of interest might be the much-maligned RNEP “Nuclear Bunker-Buster” program.
The point being that simply “going deep” isn’t good enough. But it is a fact of warfare that, for every measure, there is a countermeasure. But the cost spirals. It is safe to say that a facility the likes of a Cheyenne Mountain is simply out of reach of a small, and virtually bankrupt, state such as Iran.
He has an ideological point of view, and clearly has difficulty seeing the world other than through his dogmatic Polaroid lenses – it’s more complex than his simplistic and somewhat paranoid analyses suggest.
I’d very much debate the idea that Steyn’s outlook is simplistic or paranoid. He has simply identified a fairly consistently worked out position by Iran and its theocratic leadership since the Shah was kicked out.
One could counter Euan’s position by pointing out that he views the world with the sort of world-weary cynicism and fake sophistication of a Douglas Hurd.
One could counter Euan’s position by pointing out that he views the world with the sort of world-weary cynicism and fake sophistication of a Douglas Hurd.
Well said, sums Hurd up to a T.
There are several important points in this debate :
The USA needs the following simultaneously
(1) Protect America’s ports (The U.S. doens’t need a fission weapon in the belly of some ship coming from the ME vaporizing a port/city obviously).
(2) Close the U.S. borders
(3) Develop thermonuclear fusion technology as an alternative and powerfull nuclear energy source in a crash program, much like was done by the U.S. in developing the A-Bomb in WWII.
(4) Once The U.S. has “Energy Independence” – The U.S. won’t be subject to the problem of “Instability” in the ME (where it has been unstable for thousands of years – & this is will never end ).
(5) Once this is established – The U.S. is in a position to dictate any Military policy it wants to protect strategic interests.
Iran is a small but important part of the world for one reason only—OIL. Everything else in Iran can be destroyed, and justifiably so, because of the threats their leadership pose. The Iranians better “wake-up-quick” and see what is likely to result from their “martyrdom/death wish” for time is running out. Their sabre rattling sunni/shite/bathist/wahabist neighbors will be much better world citizens after seeing Iran reduced to sand and glass.