Bombing Iran? Counter-productive and unlikely to even work.

Ed Hall

Rebuking Herr Hitler at Munich. Counter-productive and...etc.

David

He's not Hitler.

It's no good Alex;there are those that get their kicks by bombing muslims, and they won't be deterred. If you asked them if they change their minds under fire, you'd be told of course not, their ideas are firm and not to be wavered under threat or actual violence. Oddly this very human reaction is not attributed to the other side....

Ian C

On the other hand it could just unsettle the young population sufficiently to encourage them to kick the mad mullahas out. Any bombing that migt be done would need to be structed with this prospoect in mind.

Your assumption could be a naiive one.

Stephen Rothbart

Let me see, Alex, bombing Iran will 'unify Iran, cement their determination to have a nuclear program, and build..... an undying hatred of whoever hits them.'

Well, we would not want a country that has elected their present bunch of Holocaust deniers to be united, or encourage them to build what they have already started building so they can bomb those people they already hate so much that they have threatened to use their nuclear bombs to annihalate them now, would we?

My God, did either you or Gates actually think about what you were going to say/print first, or were you both so desperate to fill in another boring day with absolute tosh that you did not bother.

If Israel bombs Iran's facility, it may make the world finally wake up to the fact that there is a problem coming and that Obama's and the EU's 'I feel your pain' approach is not working.

Iran, North Korea and the Somali pirates are no different from each other as Henninberger points out so well in the Wall Street Journal.

They all ignore the hand of friendship from Barak Hussein Obama, they all either take hostages, attack unprovoked, have a terrible record of human rights and are led by lunatics.

Obama stood up to the Somalis, or at least his Military did, and the US looked the better for it. But beating three men in a boat is different from standing up and facing down the bullies in Iran and North Korea.

Obama will not do it, and he will lose. And so will the world, because, as ever, cleaning up the mess after appeasement fails is always worse than stopping it before it got so big.

logdon

So it's just lets wait until they nuke Israel? They've said in the clearest of terms that thats what they intend with their end day prophesies. When AQ bombed Mombassa and Nairobi US Embassies Bin Laden stated that the US was next. No one took the slightest heed, prefering to think that he was just another islamist with a grouch. Why should Ahmadinejad be different? This is US cyclical lunacy veering from a New American Century policy to lets give in then everyone will like us. Because plan a doesn't work you don't then go to plan z skipping the other 24.

elixelx

Geez Alex, you really are a half-wit sometimes....!

BOMB IRAN?! BOMB IRAN?!

Do you think that the Israelis are as stupid as the French who used to send 37-cannon galleons to bombard Africa! (OK, so I've read Conrad!)

Remember it was the As*ahola Ayatollah who said that Israel was a "one bomb state", and that the bomb would not hurt Israeli Arabs, only Zionist Jews!

Be assured that the Israelis are preparing particularly-selective fireworks for the Iranian Nuclear Sites, but bomb Iran?...what do you think the Israelis are? Genocidal Maniacs?

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that that's EXACTLY what you think of Israelis....but only you and your execrable hairdresser are privy to that dirty little thought!

Alf Tupper

It is a very tricky situation. The points made by Gates and yourself, are all pointing to the fact that we have a lot of thinking and watching to do.

Is Gates right though, to assume that there is not already, an undying hatred of America and the West, and that it is this which is the driving force behind this whole project?

We can posit as many lovely Iranian civilians as we like, who just want to get on with their aircon and power showers; but the fact remains that the regime is showing a distinct hankering towards an altogether different use for their new technology.

The analogy alluded to by Ed Hall above, is I know somewhat regarded by MSM commentators as glib and simplistic, but in my weaker moments I do wonder which of our cities will be the unlucky one.

Does this not worry you Alex? What do you think we need to do here?

Gil

Oh come on, I find it hard to get all worked up about all this anymore. 'Yes bomb, no bomb', who cares. Yawn. W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. What will be will be. Could we please change the subject, it's obvious that there is a competition for ratings here among some bloggers.

porkbelly

What is Deence? Some sort of Scottish innards/oatmeal/thistles concoction? Or does it mean "self-serving careerist"?

Ben

There are two options. Either Iran's nuclear capability is taken out now and whenever necessary again in the future, or Iran nukes Israel at some not too distant date from today and wipes it off the map.

It is interesting that so many people in Britain favour the second option.

dearieme

Bombing the Iraq reactor worked.

seb

Ben

Most people will always, always, always favour the second option - appeasement. Cowardice is 'interesting'?

David

"If Israel bombs Iran's facility, it may make the world finally wake up to the fact that there is a problem coming and that Obama's and the EU's 'I feel your pain' approach is not working"

No, all it will do is bring condemnation on Israel and harden the policy, possibly encouraging other Middle East countries to follow suit.

"Bombing the Iraq reactor worked."

The Osirak reactor was in realtively open ground. Iran's facilities are much more protected and harder to hit with any effect.

I'd also note that the attack did not stop Iraq trying to obtain nuclear weapons, or other WMD's.

Olaf Rye

The problem is that we have delayed an assault on Iran, permitting them to scatter their facilities. As ever, we gave diplomacy an opportunity and the enemy used their time to prevaricate and develop their facilities whilst making them more difficult to strike. It shocks me that the some people are so naive that they believe that negotiation works well with nations such as Iran that are ideologically opposed to the west and its diplomatic traditions. Some nations cannot be dealt with through diplomacy, and Iran has demonstrated that they use talks to delay sanctions and concerted action whilst developing their weapons programmes.

Austin Barry

Israel and the US should bomb Iran's facilities. It would be useful practice for similar attacks on North Korea and Pakistan and concentrate the attention of the leaders of those tooled-up Dystopias. It would also show that US is prepared to appease, but only up to a point. And, of course, we in Europe can sit back and cluck our tongues and castigate the frightful Israelis and Yanks.

David

"It would be useful practice for similar attacks on North Korea and Pakistan "

Good grief.

David

You know, there's a word for consistantly bombing countries you don't like.

Olaf Rye

Let us also recall that the European Union led the negotiations with Iran and that the entire process was abused by the Iranian authorities as they pressed ahead with nuclear development. The only answer to the threat that they pose, and that posed by North Korea and potentially Pakistan, would be to develop the missile shield. Oddly, the European partners also seem opposed to this--they want us to be vulnerable, for some odd and perverted reason. The negotiations squandered valuable time to deal with this problem.

Max Kaye

If the alternative is a nuclear-armed Islamic Iran, then bombing their facilities every 2 or 3 years isn't too high a price.

Who knows: whether peacefully or otherwise, the Iranian people may one day replace their repressive Islamist regime one day. This would open the way for the open development of Iranian nuclear power for peaceful uses in a climate free from apocalyptic rhetoric.

Verity

Given that the Iranians don't want all this and would rather the mad mullahs (I would maintain that all mullahs are mad) were disappeared so the gals could shed their army blankets and go back to big hair, stiletto heels and lavish slap. It would be more effective, and more long-term, for the CIA to have a destablisation programme going on within the country.

David writes: "You know, there's a word for consistantly (sic) bombing countries you don't like."

What is that word?

Grytpype-thynne

David, the WMDs of Iraq rear their (laughable) heads again? The current rulers of Iran are behind most of the world's terrorism and laugh at the weakness of the West.They effectively cow their own population through the secret police and methods even Guardianistas like you would find a little unpleasant.These facilities MUST be taken out: either bombed or sabotaged; you don't mess about where a nuclear capability is involved

logdon

David
April 17th, 2009 1:46pm

You know, there's a word for consistantly bombing countries you don't like.

It's two actualy. Staying alive.

elixelx

David there is a difference between "trying to obtain" and "obtaining".
Iraq was trying to obtain, and Menachem Begin and George Bush stopped it obtaining, which you must admit is a good thing...
I see that you personally are trying to obtain a clear perspective on all this....

David

I'm not a "Guardianista." I'm right wing, and hence have an appreciation of the complexities of life, and that there are not simple, clear steps that would lead to utopia. Bombing Iran, and indeed the other countries at which some of you seem salivating at the prospect (what is it, do you get off on the death and maiming?)will not be isolated incidents with clear identifiable results without contagion. There will be a chaotic series of events that occur as a result.

Further, being right wing, I'm aware that war is not something you send the "boys" off to do, while you sit at home in a comfy armchair. Armchair generals are always the most aggressive, since they aren't the ones having to make the sacrifice. For them, these things are just words and numbers on a page, sacrificed for a greater good that can never exist.

robert

Since when has having big hair and living on the scotch borders been qualifications for ruling on international affairs?

Olaf Rye

It may be that we have lost our initiative in attempting to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and there is not the political will to engage in a conflict with that country to destroy its nuclear capability. Moreover, there is not the justification for a pre-emptive strike on them as they have not made any attempts to deploy these weapons. If there was sufficient will, perhaps we might have stopped them earlier, but that opportunity has been lost.

It is probably best to consider defensive measures now--the best of which is the development and deployment of the missile shield. This naturally would not prevent Iran from firing their nuclear devices from artillery pieces, but it does profoundly limit the range of their threat. Even the Russians have now confessed that their assessment of the Iranian threat was wrong and that the US intelligence services were more accurate than their own. Perhaps we should be more keen on curtailing their ability to threaten Europe and Israel than contemplate a bombing campaign that could not be successful without the deployment of raiding parties which put our troops at immense risk.

porkbelly

It seems like just yesterday when we were being told authoritatively by the IAEA that Iran's nuclear weapons program was the figment of the evil tyrant Bush's imagination; then we were told without the slightest shadow of a doubt that Iran was at least a decade away, despite what the wicked, lying neocons claimed. Then the CIA claimed that Iran had completely halted nuclear weapons work. Suddenly, overnight, everyone switched their positions 180 degrees: now we are told we have nothing to fear if the mullahs have nuclear weapons (the ones they won't have for another decade?) because Iran is really a civilized peace-loving nation that just wants to sit around and munch pistachios if only those beastly Israelis would stop threatening them. When is this delusionary babble going to cease? Iran's rulers want nuclear weapons because they - fully supported by the Iranian people - want Iran to be the most powerful state in the Middle East. Only Israel stands in their way, and Obama will prevent them from acting until it is too late. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia and Egypt await their turns on the chopping block. And Europe (and America) equivocate, dither, deny - anything to avoid the ugly reality before them.

A Squirrel

Wow. There is a lot of aggression in this comment section given the general sensibilities of its host.

The enemy du jour is always the worst, most vicious, and most dangerous enemy ever to exist.

Roy

A pity Mr Bush didn't do the job before he left office. Since his reputation is happily being torn to shreds anyway, a parting shot would really have sent the pigeons a fluttering.

ZK

If Pakistan has nuclear bomb, I do not understand why Iran could not pursue one? Pakistan is far bigger threat to stability than Iran (to the EU, to USA and to Israel). It is very misinformed to call Iran an anti-Semitic state. Iran hosts a sizable Jewish minority, which is protected by the Irani constitution and counts them as equals to Muslims in Iran. To be against the politics of Israel is not the same as to be anti-Semitic. Nuclear weapon for Iran will contribute to the balance of power, and it will prevent the Israeli army shooting civilians every damn time they feel like a little escapade over the walls! I maintain that the possibility of Israel attacking Iran is far higher than the USA attacking Iran. Just analyse the patron-client USA-Israel relationship, and it is all clear. Iran is likely to be the hegemonic power, and future USA partner - especially when it comes to the USA pledge for a two state solution in the Middle East. Can Israel reconcile its self to this?

Simon Shaw

1) What if the bombing is not successful? Iran has some very nice anti air facilities courtesy of Russia.
2) If Iran thinks it can bomb Israel and get away with it then you need a reality check, if Iran did this, Iran would be turned into a glass platter.
3) Estimates put Israels nuclear bomb numbers at approximately 200. MAD again.
4) If you do bomb Iran, they will gain a lot of sympathy, hate the west even more etc.

At the moment Iran appears to be moderating somewhat, give them a chance.

PS: Israel needs to pull it's head in too.

Simon Shaw

Just been googling, Iran supposedly has the Russian TOR-M1 anti air system designed to take out missiles, (like cruise) and precision guided weapons. It is extremely jam resistant.
There are also reputed to have a long range anti-air system suited for high altitude bombers.
Iran is not some desert backwater, they have a lot of tech and any inbound attack would provoke a definite response.
Oil prices would also skyrocket.

David Vance - A Tangled Web

I am afraid there is one thing worse than reducing the Mullah's atomic ambitions to cinders and that is not reducing them to cinders. Iran must not get nukes as it has plainly stated what it will do with them. So Israel must act, even as the West whistles a happy tune. Send in the planes.

Winston Smith

There's two ways to play it. Firstly bomb Iran and when they get close to getting Nuclear again, bomb them again. Keep doing this process until that is there is no longer an Iran, or else they get the message and no that they'll bever be allowed Nukes to, of course, bomb Israel. All this rubbish talk of Iran wanting Nuclear for peaceful measures is just that.
Then again there is the second option, which of course is completely shutting off Iran from the West. This means NO dialogue other than "If you bomb Irael, we will totally obliterate everything that is Iran. It means, shutting off Iran and not allowing any planed into Iran or from without. It also means no Iranians in the West who have travelled.
Of course this situation will merely anger Iran yet more and bring on a bombing of Israel.

So in regards to what's the best thing to do? Well, let's just say that Iran WILL bomb Israel when it gets the bomb. There is no 'maybe nots' here. Iran hates Israel along with almost every other Islamic state in the World. Worse still, Amadiraniandad is in ther West trying to isolate Israel and there are fools who are listening.

You have a choice to continue bombing Iran to stop it getting Nukes, or else wait for it to and obliterate Israel. It just depends whose side your on - the bully or the victim and regardless what Iran says here, we all know whose bullying who.

NadiaTomazic

Iran did not attacked anoder country in last 600 years Israel is attacking Arab countries for all of 60 yr of they existance Gaza Ghetto is they pride

Verity

David writes, with a condemnatory sob: "You know, there's a word for consistantly bombing countries you don't like."

There may well be, but to which countries do you refer? And why, given the superiority of you knowledge, cannot you spell consistently?

Poseurs always wreck themselves out of their own mouths.

Logdon - your response was better than mine.

A Squirrel writes: "Wow. There is a lot of aggression in this comment section given the general sensibilities of its host."

I think you're in the wrong room. Melanie Phillips is down the hall.