Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

This dwarfs the Cuban missile crisis by an order of magnitude or two BECAUSE of nuclear primacy on the part of the us and Israel. That element was not present during the Cuban missile crisis,

In the Cuban missile crisis, the world's two nuclear super powers almost went into pre-emptive first strike nuclear Armageddon over the issue of one of them putting nuclear medium range ballistic missiles 90 miles off shore from the other. If either Russia or the U.S. had gone for a first strike, Cuba would have been a side show. Russia's and America's nukes were aimed at each other. I'd say that the Cuban missile crisis was worse, not dwarfed. So long as we (the U.S. and Israel) can keep Russia and China at bay, then an Iranian conflict has nuclear superpowers on only one side of the conflict.

But, yeah, I otherwise agree with and appreciate your comments.

[jtabeb]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

" I'd say that the Cuban missile crisis was worse, not dwarfed"

Well I would respectfully argue that M.A.D. provided some stability and thus lessened the threat of a confrontation due to the fact that any nuclear exchange would quickly escalate to full scale nuclear war.

In the case of Iran, M.A.D. does not exist, and Nuclear Primacy for the US and Israel does exist. Nuclear Primacy is what totally changes the dynamic and is also the reason why Nuclear preemption is likely on the part of the US and/or Israel. Nuclear Primacy is only of value while you possess it. Once it's gone, it is meaningless. It's like sacrificing your King in Chess, yes you can do it, but why the hell would you (because you would have just lost the game).

I have quite a few more thoughts on this, I'll post them later. I've got kiddo's to put to bed.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Well I would respectfully argue that M.A.D. provided some stability and thus lessened the threat of a confrontation due to the fact that any nuclear exchange would quickly escalate to full scale nuclear war.

Well, in the end result, thank God, we did indeed avoid nuclear Armageddon. However my reading of history tells me that high ranking military and intelligence for both Russia and the U.S. were aggressively pushing a first strike, and that only a rather unlikely meeting of minds and souls between Khrushchev and Kennedy saved the day (and life on planet Earth.)

In the case of Iran, M.A.D. does not exist, and Nuclear Primacy for the US and Israel does exist.

This is indeed a pressure for an attempt at a tactical nuclear war, yes, though I am hopeful that our leaders will have more sense than that. I will grant that placing such hope in our leaders is absurd. The only differences I can see between Obama and McCain (he of Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran fame) is that Obama can speak, play hoops and look cool, whereas McCain can tell some good war stories.

[Jay]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Guy sounds nuts to me. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean he gets no benefit of the doubt.

The fact you of all people think there is a chance he is right scares the crap out of me.

[jtabeb]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Okay here is my big tirad on how Iran screwed itself and did't even know it until after the fact.
What we are witnessing is strikingly similar to the opening of the space race of the early cold war period. Long story short, the US throttled back and let the Russians be the first to orbit a man made satellite. The key lesson from history is WHY? Why did the US let the Russians beat them into space and suffer this ignominious defeat early in the opening stages of the cold war when all the while the US possessed the capability to win this minor trophy?
BECAUSE, there was a far greater prize at stake. In that case it was to establish the scancty of space overflight over a hostile landmass. What the Russians failed to grasp is that they had handed the Americans the very thing that they wanted, unrestricted space overflight. This was key for the us spy satellight program that followed. (I would add that theRussians would have never agreed had this been persued diplomatically by the US. The US was only able to achieve it's objectives by giving the Russians just enough rope to hang themselves and then capitalizing on this wrongfooting of the Russians).

The same DAMN THING just happened to the.Iranians and the fukcers don't even know it.

Here is why. Iran is now stuck at the mercy of the US. If you think Israel is a Pariah state, well, let's just say that Iran has them beat. The entire Arab world and most of the rest of the world save for venezula are all on the side of the us.
I mean HECK, you've got Arab countries lining up to be transit corridors for an imminent Israeli/US strike.


The Iranians are total ******* idiots because they miscalculated so badly.
They don't even freaking know why the us and Israel gave them so much time to build up their enrichment facilities. The US and Israel ALLOWED this to happen so that there would be no real objection to a preemptive strike, even a nuclear one, because world opinion has been so galvanized against Iran and the threat that it poses. Israel and the US wanted to use nukes on Iran from the get go bet had to wait until the rest of the world was basically begging for the US and Israel to do anything and EVERYTHING to stop Iran from acquiring a complete nuclear weapon system. Iran has now provided these two provocateurs (the US and Israel) with all the justification needed to conduct a preemptive nuclear first strike and with the worlds blessing no less.

The Iranians are now in a bind in a big way. They face the effective loss of their military power, and with it any hopes of being a regional power ( if you are the us or Israel why stop at just WMD, why not take away their conventional capability as well). Also Iran is too stupid to realize that neither the us or the israeli's will willingly cede nuclear primacy, it would be game over for them. That means Iran just bought itself a loss of regional power status, a preemptive nuclear attack by either or both the us and Israel. The military in Iran must be totally freaking pissed at the mullahs right now and is most likely preparing for a secular coupe as that would be the only way for them to save their position AND be able to keep the restless population under control. Without a secular transition, Iran is going to end up looking like Iraq did after the fall of salaam in a few months because of the unleashing of ethnic and religious rivalries that have remained dormant but still latent in the aftermath of the 79 revolution.

The mullahs for their part must see all of this coming. I'll bet that they are at least prepping a list of the soon to be expunged from the ranks of the senior military, if not actively relieving senior officers that they view as a threat . They know the danger that a secular military coupe could have on their ability to remain in power. It presently is a tenuous balance and either side could tip the balance in their favor by being the first to act. The funny thing is that the Iranian leadership (the Military and the Mullahs) are now trapped in a classic version of the prisnor's dilemma. He who betrays first wins all.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
The prisoner's dilemma is a fundamental problem in game theory that demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "prisoner's dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).
A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated the prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies for the prosecution against the other (defects) and the other remains silent (cooperates), the defector goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

If we assume that each player cares only about minimizing his or her own time in jail, then the prisoner's dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in which two players may each either cooperate with or defect from (betray) the other player. In this game, as in most game theory, the only concern of each individual player (prisoner) is maximizing his or her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution, that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect, even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperatively.
In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defecting, so that the only possible equilibrium for the game is for all players to defect. No matter what the other player does, one player will always gain a greater payoff by playing defect. Since in any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will play defect, all things being equal.





Anyway, Iran is now stuck with three choices. Two are terrible (nuclear war if they continue due us/Israel failure to cede nuke primacy or they can try to stall even more which leads to the exact same outcome).


So that effectively only leaves them with one choice. To give up their nuke program completely and try to get the best concessions that they can on security guarantees and on civilian power. The first two choices GUARANTEE that Iran will loose it's ability to play a role as a strategic regional power, the third leaves it open as a possibility.


If they Iranians had any brains at all they would try to salvage something from this and turn all these broken eggs into an omelette. If they could get a really good security guarantee, and score a coup (no pun intended) on some sort of cherry civilian nuclear technology (like that new liquid sodium cooled depleted uranium traveling wave reactor) and hang on to their conventional military, then they might, as in MAYBE, be able to continue their quest to the fulfillment of their regional power ambitions. The US would be loathed to release such a technological gem and would rather see Iran end up with Chernobly era PWR reactors and a foreign dependence on a nuclear fuel source. The Depleted uranium reactor runs for like 60 years eliminating the dependence on foreign fuel supplies.

If you want to beat someone at tick-tac-toe, then go play the Iranians. Dear lord, I think we are stupid in the US sometimes, but this really takes the yellow cake!

[gnk]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

The worst that the Shah ever did was crop a few ears. He should have hung the trouble-makers; i.e, the one's who came to the Univ. of California at Berkeley in 1969 to speak about their plan to establish "the world's first Islamic Republic in Iran". And we at Berkeley thought this would be a step forward for Iran! Forty-one years later, looking back, I don't think we were so bright. We were duped.

I am very dismayed that kids in colleges and universities, worldwide to-day are still being duped by advocates for Islamic-republics, apologists for Arminishod and his regime in Iran, advocates for fundamentalist Islam, and apologists for Islamic-terrorists.

The Shah is not the issue, the issue was the overthrow of a republic by a foreign power. How would you like it if the US Constitution was nullified by a foreign governement, and a puppet regime was put in place?

[aaron]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Do they really have a nuclear weapons program? Is there proof?

...or does that not really matter (again)?

[jtabeb]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

It doesn't matter, it's what the American Public Believes that they have. Come on, we've seen this game before (see Gulf war II), and the outcome will be the same. The public will realize AFTER the fact that they have been duped, not before. So for all intents and purposes, it don't freaking matter one little bit.

[aaron]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Thanks, jtabeb. I was afraid I was missing something.

[jtabeb]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Don't worry, I'm usually wrong, just look at my previous calls. Wait a minute, My calls are usually great. Oh FU%*! Time to fill up the car and buy more bottled water.

(Sorry, I like moribund humor) Every little laugh helps when you are facing mushroom clouds is what I always say.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

How would you like it if the US Constitution was nullified by a foreign government, and a puppet regime was put in place?

Perhaps that is not a hypothetical. Perhaps a foreign government some power mad elitists and their Bankster cohorts have nullified the U.S. Constitution and installed a puppet regine?

No - I don't like it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

The Iranians are total ******* idiots because they miscalculated so badly.

I wonder to what extent the Iranians were "assisted" in this miscalculation.

You've just stated, and I agree, that Americans can be and apparently are being once again "assisted" in making a serious miscalculation.

Do the Iranians have some immunity from such "assistance"?

Someone wants some more war. So war it shall be, and another chapter in human history be writ.

Perhaps the people of America and the people of Iran, both of whom would prefer to life in freedom and prosperity, in accordance with their various beliefs, have a common enemy.

[c1ue]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

Don't worry, I'm usually wrong, just look at my previous calls. Wait a minute, My calls are usually great. Oh FU%*! Time to fill up the car and buy more bottled water.

The line is drawn in the sand - let's see.

Iran is a very different animal than Iraq - it isn't a mishmash of Shia, Sunni, and Kurd.

Secondly US casualties in AfPak continue to mount. According to iCasualties, there have been more US casualties in AfPak every single month of this year so far compared to previous years.

Total 2010 seems almost certain to have a 4 handle.

The Tarpley missive is certainly long, but there are several areas which are completely loopy conspiracy theorist - which in turn lends doubt to the entire enterprise.

Certainly bombing is a possibility, but to not follow it up is going to be a big mistake.

And following it up is equally going to be a big mistake.

[ASH]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

The fact you of all people think there is a chance he is right scares the crap out of me.

I put more stock in what JT's tanker-flying friend has to say than anything in the link.

A couple of years ago, I thought to myself: we're definitely going to bomb Iran before the end of Bush's term in office.

Then that National Intelligence Estimate came out, and I thought: huh -- that's the one thing that could happen that would make a strike politically impossible for this administration.

In the years following that NIE, the public position of some of our allies hardened on Iran, and we publicized our discovery of the site at Qom. Then I thought: Obama won't shoot until he's gone through the requisite diplomatic motions... which have largely been completed.

Now I'm thinking that a strike on Iran would be politically suicidal for Obama (strongly weakening the support of his base), and is the absolute last thing that our security planners would want to deal with... and that this guy's theories about Cheney are absolutely delusional... but then again, a couple years ago, I thought we'd strike Iran before the end of Bush's term in office.

For the record, I think there is almost no chance that we will attack Iran in the next two years, because all the factors of which I'm aware point against it: it's bad politics for Obama, it's one crisis too many for the country's leadership (actually, it would probably be the second or third crisis beyond what we're presently able to handle), and from a strategic viewpoint we aren't in a position to follow up in any way that would achieve lasting results. Also, I would say that there is zero chance we will use nuclear weapons to do so, if we do attack Iranian nuclear sites -- I don't think it is technically necessary to use nuclear weapons, and the political harm from doing so would far outweigh the limited technical advantages. In my opinion, Israel is the wild card -- they see this both as more of an existential danger, and a more immediate danger, than do we. I'm just not certain that the Israelis have a high enough confidence in success to launch something entirely on their own, and I doubt the US's calculations are such that they would let the Israelis force their hand into providing assistance.

[touchring]

Re: Iran is SCREWED!!!!!!

I think matter of time, there's only one way a war can be avoided:

1. Surrender Israel to Iran. With fanatics, a mutual nuclear deterrence does not exist.

2. Let Saudi Arabia arm themselves with nukes. I doubt Iran will be fanatical enough to nuke Mecca.

If the US is prepared for 1 and 2, presto! We can avoid war! lol