Should the 'west' make a pre-emptive strike in Iran?

[FBM]

Serious one this. The Iranians are playing 'war games' and practising what they would do if their nuclear sites were attacked. Their response includes sending missiles to Israel. It does seem almost certain they are trying to make nuclear weapons but in reality they are probably currently far weaker than Israel let alone the combined forces of the west.

At what point should the rest of us say 'enough' - we can't risk a nuclear Iran?...and if they won't come quietly, which they won't..attack them?

Or is there a totally different strategy?

IIRC, I started a thread a couple of months ago about pretty much the same topic, but with North Korea as the target. Seeing as how NK already has nukes and has openly stated their intent to weaponize, seems that'd be the logical place to start pre-emptives, wouldn't it?

Oh. Except there's no oil in NK except what we send them.

[FedUpWithFaith]

It's hard to reason on this topic without complete information, which I fear our intelligence services probably don't have completely and which I know I don't have. I fear that decisively knocking out Iran's nuclear bomb-making capacity won't be anywhere near as "easy" as Israel's knockout of one offline reactor 30 years ago. From what little I do know, Iran has spent considerable resources building many facilities underground - deep underground in mountains. One has to wonder what scope of operation would be needed for a decisive blow that wouldn't take us into war. However, my greater fear is that if Iran is attacked and its sovereignty violated its people will unite behind their hideous regime which has finally begun to show signs of cracking, at least as far as its legitimacy to its own people is concerned. I don't know if the current regime has 10 years left or 50. But if they are attacked by the West you can probably double whatever that is and beg future actions that will just keep delaying its implosion.

Our greatest hope for Iran is its people. Yes, there area lot of religious nuts there but there are a lot of well-educated rational people there too. They're Persians with a deeper history than the Arabs and a people with a modern history of embracing much liberalism, including having better women's rights than many Muslim countries. And the US and the UK have been on the wrong side of Iranian history for some time, destroying the liberal Mossadegh regime in 1953 so that BP could control its oil. They have deep and legitimate reasons to be against us that make taking action against them all the more heinous in the eyes of their people.

I don't like the idea of living with a nuclear Iran but that may be the best option Sanctions don't work either and only hurt average Iranians. I think the more hands-off we can be with Iran the sooner they'll revolutionize themselves for the better. I think that they have to be contained, in many respects like the Soviet Union was. They have people in power that want to live and stay in power. I think they need to know if they use their nuclear weapons or give them to terrorists they will be wiped off the map.

[Don't Panic]

...
I'm old enough to remember it very well. The US withheld delivery of a sizeable batch of F-16s, but only for a short while.

Yeah, "Bad Israel, no new planes for you... for now."

They certainly had enough for the turkey shoot over the Bekaa Valley the following year.

The only question is: How does the Israeli Air Force get to Iran?

Air base in Northern Israel, near the Golan Heights, across Lebannon, through Syria, over Turkey, into Iran, no need to go into Iraq, looking at the map though there is a bigger logistical problem, the F-16 doesn't have the legs for that kind of mission even with external tanks and I don't think the IAF have the capability to do mid-air refueling.
The E variant of the F-15 could probably reach that far but I don't know if the US have sold any to Israel.

[Rum]

-snip-

I don't like the idea of living with a nuclear Iran but that may be the best option Sanctions don't work either and only hurt average Iranians. I think the more hands-off we can be with Iran the sooner they'll revolutionize themselves for the better. I think that they have to be contained, in many respects like the Soviet Union was. They have people in power that want to live and stay in power. I think they need to know if they use their nuclear weapons or give them to terrorists they will be wiped off the map.

A case of wishful thinking I fancy FUWF. It may well be the least worst option, but to rely on the people getting round the government is putting hope before reason I suspect. Although there is a great deal of opposition to the present regime in Iran the opponents of the Mullahs don't seem any less anti-western. They might be a little less reckless and a bit more pragmatic I suppose, but there is no guarantee that if they came to power - a long shot in any case - they would take a radically different approach.

[Sisifo]

Personally I am not at all concerned about a nuclear Iran, at least no more -or a lot less- than with a nuclear Pakistan. I find amusing/irritating the regard of Iran as an agressive fundamentalist country ready to jump to the West's throat.
Despite all the blaming and name calling ("Axis of Evil"... OMG) of USA to any Government who opposes USA's foreign policy in Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Iran...), the Islam puppetmaster is Saudi Arabia. Almost all fundamentalism or terrorist group discovered point there. But they are allies, so all is good, it's so manipulating that is laughable.

The people in Iran are quite Western-Culture friendly, and regard most of their customs as social customs, not taking them so seriously. A lot more laid back than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

Even if they had nuclear power, to place a missile is a whole different story. Not even Saddam was able to distance-attack Israel.

With the current level of culture of Iran, and the culture increase in the recent years, its universitary movements and students political views, I bet for a non-fundamentalist open and modern State in one generation. If they (America) don't screw it up... once again.

I am more concern about the soup that is being cooked at the South: Afghanistan, Pakistan and India...

Final thought:
You wanna have a laugh? Try to invade Iran... Bigger than Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan together, and more people than the whole Arabian Peninsula. Snowy mountains and hellfire deserts.
I heard once an American diplomat saying that USA has won all military conflicts, but lost all wars since 1945. I agree, and I wish they don't meddle in this.

[JimC]

FUWF wrote:

...However, my greater fear is that if Iran is attacked and its sovereignty violated its people will unite behind their hideous regime which has finally begun to show signs of cracking, at least as far as its legitimacy to its own people is concerned. I don't know if the current regime has 10 years left or 50. But if they are attacked by the West you can probably double whatever that is and beg future actions that will just keep delaying its implosion...

I think this is a valid point, and one that the current Iranian government is counting on; uniting the people against the evil invaders...

[Feck]

I don't think anyone will be attacking Iran soon ..one of the companies in Aberdeen has a large contract to supply and fit a lot of base units, dishes and other
Oil industry related comms and entertainment stuff . They are also sending their own people over there to fit the stuff ,Seems we are on lucrative trade terms with Iran And not really about to go to war .

[The Dawktor]

As long as no-one pronounces it NucUler- I shall remain calm!

[FBM]

As long as no-one pronounces it NucUler- I shall remain calm!

Speaking of the former Dickwad-in-Chief, isn't this whole "pre-emptive strike" business the work of the 'Bush Doctrine' that Palin choked on in that interview?

[Witticism]

Serious one this. The Iranians are playing 'war games' and practising what they would do if their nuclear sites were attacked. Their response includes sending missiles to Israel. It does seem almost certain they are trying to make nuclear weapons but in reality they are probably currently far weaker than Israel let alone the combined forces of the west.

At what point should the rest of us say 'enough' - we can't risk a nuclear Iran?...and if they won't come quietly, which they won't..attack them?

Or is there a totally different strategy?

Moot point, as soon as the Israelis confirm that Iran is anywhere close to developing a nuclear weapon they will act unilaterally and 'remove' those facilities.
This will enable the rest of the western World to publicly condemn their actions as being detrimental to the process of negotiated settlement of the issue while behind the scenes they'll replace the weapons the Israelis expended in removing the problem.

Hmm ... that's what I was thinking.

Sing it Billy ...

"I'm not the one to tell,
this world how to get along.
I only know that peace will come,
when all our hate is gone"

Billy Bragg

[Clinton Huxley]

Maybe what the world really needs is a pre-emptive strike against the conventional weaponry of the US and the UK to prevent them from launching any more illegal wars...

[Pappa]

Maybe what the world really needs is a pre-emptive strike against the conventional weaponry of the US and the UK to prevent them from launching any more illegal wars...

I iz concurrin'.

[Feck]

pre-emptive strike .....um That's an act of war before any declaration of war ? sort of Murder then ?

So should the West murder some more Muslems in the middle east,for our safety ?

[Clinton Huxley]

pre-emptive strike .....um That's an act of war before any declaration of war ? sort of Murder then ?

So should the West murder some more Muslems in the middle east,for our safety ?

"Pick up the gun......"
"No, mister, you'll shoot me!"
"Pick up. The Gun...."
BANG!
"You saw him, he had a gun....."

Bill Hicks was a prophet.....

[Witticism]

pre-emptive strike .....um That's an act of war before any declaration of war ? sort of Murder then ?

So should the West murder some more Muslems in the middle east,for our safety ?