US/Iran thread

[southsider2k5]

It is probably time for this to have its own thread, between Obama calling out Iran for having a secret facility, and then Iran responding by conducting missile test.

[NorthSideSox72]

Usually, when these rising tensions come up with states acting outside what most of the world wants, a way is found for them to push boundaries but not break down into full-on war. And the US, Russia and Europe all seem to want to keep it that way with Iran - negotiate and use economic incentives and sanctions to change behavior.

 

But in this case, the wild card is Israel. Iran is about to reach an inflection point - like North Korea did - and decide if they want to take the last step and make some nukes. In NK's case, negotiation didn't really work - but they didn't have an Isreal to deal with. Japan wasn't going to strike them preemtpively, China and Russia have no desire to either. But with Iran, I honestly think that if they get to where they are starting into the last phases of producing a nuke, that Isreal will strike Iran to end the program, even without the support of the US or others.

 

And that could end pretty badly. Israel destroys targets in Iran, Iran starts lobbing missles into Israel... then it could go any number of ways.

 

[GoSox05]

Obama needs to be strong on Israel. He needs to let them know that he is taking charge and a preemptive strike will not be tolerated.

 

Iran has a young and pro-western youth. You don't wanna see that go away overnight.

[bmags]

They need China to go along with sanctions pretty badly. Russia was a good first step.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

I think what we're about to find out is that Obama is a bigger hawk than anyone on the left ever figured out. Just a lot more careful about where he plants our feet.

[Balta1701]

Probably also worth noting that the new Iranian facility is supposedly under construction within a mountain next to the city of Qom, a holy city for the Shi'a. I'm sure that's no accident. You want to hit that facility militarily...I'll bet the civilian toll will be enormous.

[NorthSideSox72]

Probably also worth noting that the new Iranian facility is supposedly under construction within a mountain next to the city of Qom, a holy city for the Shi'a. I'm sure that's no accident. You want to hit that facility militarily...I'll bet the civilian toll will be enormous.

It would be an enormous casualty rate only if they nuke it. I am sure the facility is not within the city, so convetional weapons shouldn't cause an issue.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Probably also worth noting that the new Iranian facility is supposedly under construction within a mountain next to the city of Qom, a holy city for the Shi'a. I'm sure that's no accident. You want to hit that facility militarily...I'll bet the civilian toll will be enormous.

My guess is because they will let inspectors in, but do what Iraq did... "you cant go THERE because it's holy ground".

[kapkomet]

My guess is because they will let inspectors in, but do what Iraq did... "you cant go THERE because it's holy ground".

Oh, that could be a little justification as to why the Iraq war happened in the first place, but let's not derail the subject totally. It's just a point.

[lostfan]

Iran has a young and pro-western youth. You don't wanna see that go away overnight.

We dropped the ball on this once, no reason for us to repeat the mistakes of 2 generations ago.

 

What I want to know is what people think Iran will do if Israel actually did bomb them.

[kapkomet]

We dropped the ball on this once, no reason for us to repeat the mistakes of 2 generations ago.

 

What I want to know is what people think Iran will do if Israel actually did bomb them.

If Isreal does it right, not a damn thing.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

We dropped the ball on this once, no reason for us to repeat the mistakes of 2 generations ago.

 

What I want to know is what people think Iran will do if Israel actually did bomb them.

I think this depends on what sort of support Iran can get from some of its neighbors. If Israel strikes Iran, and if Iran has the backing of certain regional powers like the Saudis et al, then I think Iran counterattacks with missiles, and probably does something closer to home as well to prove the point (starts messing around with Iraq more than they are). I think they would also seriously boost their arming and support of the Palestinians.

 

The thing that is scary there, in my view, is that Israel can strike Iran all day, and Iran can lob missiles into Israel and arm the Palestinians and Iranians even more, back and forth... and neither country is going to invade the other. This leads back, again, to support of regional powers. It ALSO asks the question, does Iran think that the US would act militarily in concert with the Israelis.

 

Maybe I'm worrying too much about it, maybe I'm wrong and nothing happens, but I have a hard time believing that Iran would allow their military and nuclear facilities to be bombed without responding in some way militarily. Just seems non-viable to me, for their domestic political situation.

 

And as people have pointed out, it would be a shame to waste the fact that Iran is probably going to shift on its own in the coming decades. But I just see a narrowing tunnel here, IF Iran decides to build a weapon.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

If Isreal does it right, not a damn thing.

Israel is not going to take out the entire Iranian military. They couldn't realistically do that, not in a short period of time anyway.

 

[GoSox05]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ins't the most popular person in Iran right now, but if bombed that will all change.

 

Our foreign policy with Iran has been a complete disaster. Maybe we should try something different this time.

[lostfan]

If Isreal does it right, not a damn thing.

Unless the Israelis can quickly and decisively take out the Iranian military and their paramilitary forces (highly unlikely to say the least) then I really doubt this. The Iranians are pretty nationalist, even the pro-Western ones, and they wouldn't just let that slide.

[NorthSideSox72]

Unless the Israelis can quickly and decisively take out the Iranian military and their paramilitary forces (highly unlikely to say the least) then I really doubt this. The Iranians are pretty nationalist, even the pro-Western ones, and they wouldn't just let that slide.

That's my thinking.

 

Take a look at the two "lines" we are headed down here. Israel cannot abide a nuclear Iran, and Iran cannot abide being bombed without retaliation. Therefore, the only thing that I can see staying off a serious conflict here is if Iran doesn't (or cannot) build nuclear weapons. And right now, that seems unlikely. Again, the narrowing tunnel.

 

[kapkomet]

Israel is not going to take out the entire Iranian military. They couldn't realistically do that, not in a short period of time anyway.

Of course not.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course not.

They also couldn't take out both nuke facilities AND all their long and medium range missle AND their air superiority fleet AND their air power extending aircraft AND the ordinances for those. I just listed everything that could hit Israel, and Israel cannot take them all down fast enough to remove their ability to strike back.

 

[kapkomet]

I think you'd be surprised at what all they hit. They won't hit everything, but they'll hit more then you think.

 

[lostfan]

Likewise I think you'd be surprised by how strong Iran's military actually is.

[Balta1701]

It would be an enormous casualty rate only if they nuke it. I am sure the facility is not within the city, so convetional weapons shouldn't cause an issue.

Here's where some of that geology knowledge comes in to play.

 

Most of the cities in the Middle east have grown up around 1 resource; water. Since it's so dry, you can only build a city where you have easy access to water. This means either you need a legit river (Baghdad) or you need access to the aquifer. The water tables tend to sit pretty low in the ground, below where you'd conveniently dig most wells at, because there's not a lot of rain. Therefore, you need a place where the aquifer moves vertically along some path.

 

The only vertical paths through those strata are fault lines. Where you have a fault, you wind up with several benefits; you're sitting next to a mountain range, which can sometimes cause extra orographic rain, or you can dig in to the mountain range and hit the aquifer where water travels upwards along the faults. This is exactly what happens in Iran, most of the major cities, including Tehran, grew up right next to mountain ranges because the faults lifting up the mountains are where the water comes in. In Tehran, they're literally building hospitals with great views on top of the active fault scarp.

 

This type of fault and setup was what destroyed Bam, Iran, about a decade ago. It's going to destroy Tehran and most of the other cities in Iran eventually. But this also means you literally have a city that has grown up surrounding and on top of growing mountains. You can only tell so much from the Google Earth image resolution, but there certainly appears to be active ranges that cut right through the heart of the city, at both the SE, NE, and NW parts of the map. Now, I'm not in the goverment there, but if I were going to decide to put a hidden uranium enrichment facility somewhere in Iran, it'd be right in the heart of their holiest city buried underground inside one of those mountain ranges, so that it wasn't obvious from satellites that unusual construction was taking place, and so that you'd have to pound the Hell out of the area to legitimately hit the facility. The geology here is to their benefit; the mountains are the city, and the city is there because of the mountains.

 

I'd bet this is exactly why their missile and satellite facilities are located in Qom, as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's where some of that geology knowledge comes in to play.

 

Most of the cities in the Middle east have grown up around 1 resource; water. Since it's so dry, you can only build a city where you have easy access to water. This means either you need a legit river (Baghdad) or you need access to the aquifer. The water tables tend to sit pretty low in the ground, below where you'd conveniently dig most wells at, because there's not a lot of rain. Therefore, you need a place where the aquifer moves vertically along some path.

 

The only vertical paths through those strata are fault lines. Where you have a fault, you wind up with several benefits; you're sitting next to a mountain range, which can sometimes cause extra orographic rain, or you can dig in to the mountain range and hit the aquifer where water travels upwards along the faults. This is exactly what happens in Iran, most of the major cities, including Tehran, grew up right next to mountain ranges because the faults lifting up the mountains are where the water comes in. In Tehran, they're literally building hospitals with great views on top of the active fault scarp.

 

This type of fault and setup was what destroyed Bam, Iran, about a decade ago. It's going to destroy Tehran and most of the other cities in Iran eventually. But this also means you literally have a city that has grown up surrounding and on top of growing mountains. You can only tell so much from the Google Earth image resolution, but there certainly appears to be active ranges that cut right through the heart of the city, at both the SE, NE, and NW parts of the map. Now, I'm not in the goverment there, but if I were going to decide to put a hidden uranium enrichment facility somewhere in Iran, it'd be right in the heart of their holiest city buried underground inside one of those mountain ranges, so that it wasn't obvious from satellites that unusual construction was taking place, and so that you'd have to pound the Hell out of the area to legitimately hit the facility. The geology here is to their benefit; the mountains are the city, and the city is there because of the mountains.

 

I'd bet this is exactly why their missile and satellite facilities are located in Qom, as well.

With all the money they are pouring into nuclear research, do you think they didn't consult a geologist, or at least a geological map of some kind? Because I'm pretty confident they wouldn't build a complex like that right on top of a fault.

 

Although, now that I think of it, maybe the US isn't so smart about this either. Los Alamos is not exactly in a geologically calm area, being near the Rio Grande Rift as well as the Jemez Caldera. But that was also the 1940's - the stuff is now built mostly at the Pantex facility outside Amarillo, which is geologically as low-risk as you can get.

 

I don't know, but I'd think in the current age, they'd have thought to do some geological study first.

 

[CanOfCorn]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ins't the most popular person in Iran right now, but if bombed that will all change.

 

Our foreign policy with Iran has been a complete disaster. Maybe we should try something different this time.

 

He isn't the most popular person anywhere after his UN antics. I know there are plenty of crazies out there...but politicians usually aren't the ones you have to worry about.

 

It's a no win situation for all governments involved...the question is always...Why now?

[Balta1701]

With all the money they are pouring into nuclear research, do you think they didn't consult a geologist, or at least a geological map of some kind? Because I'm pretty confident they wouldn't build a complex like that right on top of a fault.

 

Although, now that I think of it, maybe the US isn't so smart about this either. Los Alamos is not exactly in a geologically calm area, being near the Rio Grande Rift as well as the Jemez Caldera. But that was also the 1940's - the stuff is now built mostly at the Pantex facility outside Amarillo, which is geologically as low-risk as you can get.

 

I don't know, but I'd think in the current age, they'd have thought to do some geological study first.

What's more likely to happen...the earthquake (within probably a couple hundred years I'd guess) or the U.S./Israel bombing the crap out of the place? I'd say the latter. And anyway, some faults are more active than others even in active ranges...if you're careful you can pull it off, where you build in an active zone but in a place that won't be totally destroyed (We're trying to do this with Yucca Mountain, for example).

 

Although, Iran isn't the smartest about its seismic hazard analysis. The hospital in Tehran that they just built in the worst possible location is the best example I can give.

 

Anyway, the seismic issues aren't what should be noted here. What we should be thinking of is the intimate relationship between the cities and the mountains, and how that can be used as easy protection for any military facilities.

[Balta1701]

He isn't the most popular person anywhere after his UN antics. I know there are plenty of crazies out there...but politicians usually aren't the ones you have to worry about.

 

It's a no win situation for all governments involved...the question is always...Why now?

That's an easy one to answer. The Iranian government has been working on this facility for a number of months, perhaps years. The U.S. and others have known about that for a while, but have kept it a secret for whatever reason. Last week, the Iranian government found out that the U.S. and others knew about the facility somehow (I don't think that we fully know how they found out). They immediately confessed the facility's presence to the IAEA, as they should have done before construction began on it, as soon as they found out that the jig was up.