The case for strikes against Iran - Diplomacy alone won't stop Iran's nuclear ambitions

[peacebird]

From todays CS Monitor....

" Iran's latest defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency says it all: Further diplomacy has no chance of stopping Iran's nuclear program. Neither will UN sanctions have any effect.

Unless there is a timely defensive first strike at pertinent elements of Iran's expanding nuclear infrastructures, it will acquire nuclear weapons. The consequences would be intolerable and unprecedented.

<snip>
It would be lawful because the US and/or Israel would be acting in appropriate self-defense. Both countries could act on behalf of the international community and could do so lawfully without wider approval."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0508/p09s01-coop.html

(i feel ill....)

[Kagemusha]

1. Pearl Harbour, anticipatory self-defense?

Besides, the real damned problem is that there's huge doubt as to whether strikes would do anything to improve the situation. This guy's point of view seems to be, nah - Iran's run in a completely religious, non-logical manner so they'll go all out war on us later anyway, so let's get our shots in now!

[HereSince1628]

2. Granted Wikipedia isn't always reliable, but they have a page on Beres

Taken from Wikipedia:

"...Quote from Professor Beres' page at Purdue University:

"Louis René Beres lectures and publishes widely on matters of terrorism, strategy and international law. The author of several early books on nuclear war and nuclear terrorism, he is closely involved with Israeli security issues, and is Chair of "Project Daniel," a group advising Israel's Prime Minister on existential nuclear questions. The group's final report, Israel's Strategic Future, has been the subject of several dozen editorial columns in some of the world's leading magazines and newspapers. Professor Beres advocates a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. He justified the loss of Iranian lives on moral and legal grounds in order to protect Israeli lives in the case of a potential Iranian attack on Israel. Professor Beres' most recent articles have appeared in International Security (Harvard), and in the Policy Paper series of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel). His opinion columns appear in such major newspapers as The New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Star, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (Israel)."

[Boo Boo]

3. "Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Professor of Political Science and

International Law at Purdue University. His work on Israeli security matters is known widely in Israeli political, military and intelligence circles."

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/beresa.htm

The neocons haven't given up their dream! They're gonna keep pushing for this, and I continue to believe that both Bush and Cheney want to do it. Clark and VoteVets.org are still mobilizing against an attack on Iran, and if Clark thinks it's going to happen it's because people on the inside are telling him so.

Scary stuff.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Call me a strict constructionist, but "self defense" means you are attacked

literally before you raise your arms to rebut. You can't go "first".

[peacebird]

5. exactly my belief as well....

[GeorgeGist]

6. Long time passing, long time ago.

Will they ever care where graveyards go?

[nealmhughes]

7. The heart of Iran's demand for a strong defense/deterrence is in the I-I War of 80-88.

The main quarrel was on the settlemnt of an Arabic speaking Shia province upon Iran during Ottoman/Persian negotiations long ago. This happens to border the Iraqi border and has the riches oil reserves in Iran as well as a well developed agricultural/industrial infrastructure based on its two very large navigable rivers that provide power and fertile fields, as well as access to the sea.

The Iraqis have been agitating for "return" of "their" province since the Baathists came to power. Finally, with the demise of the US-Shah alliance after the 79 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the time was ripe: they had been hurling verbal barbs and engaging in mini-Tonkin incidents since Ayatollah Khomeini declared Iraq to be the agent of the Great Satan (and we know who that is, the Persian Gulf's then newest BFF, the good ole' U. S. of A.).

Perhaps a million people died in total, Teheran was destroyed by missiles and finally the cease fire went through. Iran has vowed that the state will never be dependent upon fickle allies or outsiders again. Add in the traditional Shia/Sunni cum Arab/Persian emnity and one has the seeds of a deep divide between the two when Arab Sunnis are in control of Iraq.

Prior to Ottoman times, the entire Gulf Region was under the control of the Iranian Shah. All of it, from what is now Pakistan to Baku.

Inferiority complex on behalf of the Sunni Arabs over the glories of Indo-Iranian Classical Culture? Just water and oil? Conflict over who should be Caliph? All of the above? Who knows, pick your poison, nationalism, cultural envy, sheer desire for Lebensraum?

But with Iran surrounded (at least on paper, though how reliable any of these would be in a US led invasion of Iran is questionable, IMHO) Pakistan, Afghghanistan, various post-Soviet Stans and Iraq, then who can sleep well at night in Teheran or Ishafan knowing that the rockets from the subs and B2s might be in flight any moment. . .

That is why Iran is antsy. All 77 million of them.