I don’t know enough to say much. Some say bombing the nuclear facilities is unlikely to succeed. I don’t believe Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions. So diplomatic efforts are likely to fail to achieve the goal of disarmament.
It seems we will have to use military force to prevent them from achieving nuclear weapons. But what specifically to do??
Iran certainly seem unwilling to even limit uranium enrichment.
Enrichment is a nuclear weapons program, and vice versa.
We likely could not take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a single strike. The enrichment sites themselves are known to be hardened.
Given Iran's willingness to sponsor terrorism throughout the Middle East, there is no way a nuclear armed Iran would not be massively destabilizing. A nuclear armed Iran would also compel Saudi Arabia to find a way to build or buy nuclear weapons as well. Even Turkey might want to join the ranks of the nuclear armed.
If diplomacy fails, the next best option is going to be a military one.
I’m glad you’re writing on this subject, as so much is at stake. Everything seems to be at an unresolvable stalemate. A cynical person (gosh, not ME) might conclude that Trump will be forced to implement some kind of “regime change” strategy, as the U.S. has done in the past. What do you think, Peter - do you see some kind of underhanded tactic that will be too tempting for Trump to resist?
Iran has (or at least had) a relatively modern infrastructure and relatively modern civic institutions. That would make Iran a far more plausible target for regime change than was the case for Iraq or Afghanistan.
"State building" is a lot easier than "nation building."
That said, the predicate to either is beating the existing regime on the battlefield. Trump would have to put boots on the ground and march into Tehran in order to make regime change even a possibility.
That could prove to be easier said than done. The Iranian Plateau is a pretty rugged bit of territory which would greatly favor defense rather than offense. While the state of Iran's army is problematic particularly in terms of power projection, it is far more organized than the Taliban was in 2001, and would likely have better morale than the Iraqis in 2003.
An invasion would be a difficult and costly undertaking.
The alternative would be to conduct an air campaign, with or without Israel, to neutralize Iran's nuclear facilities. The challenge with that is Iran has had ample time to harden the key facilities and move much of the critical infrastructure underground.
The diplomatic route is the better route in almost every particular save the complete lack of trust evident between Iran and the US--if it can be made to work.
What about (whispers:) the CIA? Short of assassinations, I don’t see what they could do, but what do I know of such covert shenanigans? Plus, apparently, much of the current CIA is against Trump. Still, Trump might see something that is short of starting an actual war. Or?
You know, pondering this, I think what Trump would be best at is to continue to marginalize the Iranian regime. Sanctions, Israel, economic isolation, Sunni vs Shiite angst, etc. - Trump’s negotiating cards. The problem is that those have not completely worked - yet. Trump is the master at this stuff, however, so I’m hoping he has more card strategies to employ; tactics no one has successfully implemented as yet. Go Donald!
I don’t know enough to say much. Some say bombing the nuclear facilities is unlikely to succeed. I don’t believe Iran will give up their nuclear ambitions. So diplomatic efforts are likely to fail to achieve the goal of disarmament.
It seems we will have to use military force to prevent them from achieving nuclear weapons. But what specifically to do??
Iran certainly seem unwilling to even limit uranium enrichment.
Enrichment is a nuclear weapons program, and vice versa.
We likely could not take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a single strike. The enrichment sites themselves are known to be hardened.
Given Iran's willingness to sponsor terrorism throughout the Middle East, there is no way a nuclear armed Iran would not be massively destabilizing. A nuclear armed Iran would also compel Saudi Arabia to find a way to build or buy nuclear weapons as well. Even Turkey might want to join the ranks of the nuclear armed.
If diplomacy fails, the next best option is going to be a military one.
That's never a good option.
I’m glad you’re writing on this subject, as so much is at stake. Everything seems to be at an unresolvable stalemate. A cynical person (gosh, not ME) might conclude that Trump will be forced to implement some kind of “regime change” strategy, as the U.S. has done in the past. What do you think, Peter - do you see some kind of underhanded tactic that will be too tempting for Trump to resist?
Iran has (or at least had) a relatively modern infrastructure and relatively modern civic institutions. That would make Iran a far more plausible target for regime change than was the case for Iraq or Afghanistan.
"State building" is a lot easier than "nation building."
That said, the predicate to either is beating the existing regime on the battlefield. Trump would have to put boots on the ground and march into Tehran in order to make regime change even a possibility.
That could prove to be easier said than done. The Iranian Plateau is a pretty rugged bit of territory which would greatly favor defense rather than offense. While the state of Iran's army is problematic particularly in terms of power projection, it is far more organized than the Taliban was in 2001, and would likely have better morale than the Iraqis in 2003.
An invasion would be a difficult and costly undertaking.
The alternative would be to conduct an air campaign, with or without Israel, to neutralize Iran's nuclear facilities. The challenge with that is Iran has had ample time to harden the key facilities and move much of the critical infrastructure underground.
The diplomatic route is the better route in almost every particular save the complete lack of trust evident between Iran and the US--if it can be made to work.
What about (whispers:) the CIA? Short of assassinations, I don’t see what they could do, but what do I know of such covert shenanigans? Plus, apparently, much of the current CIA is against Trump. Still, Trump might see something that is short of starting an actual war. Or?
Hell, if Trump wants to go that route he doesn't go to the CIA. He calls up Bibi and say "have fun".
You can be sure the Mossad has any number of scenarios for taking out the senior leadership in Iran.
LOL!!! Peter, you’re wonderful!
You know, pondering this, I think what Trump would be best at is to continue to marginalize the Iranian regime. Sanctions, Israel, economic isolation, Sunni vs Shiite angst, etc. - Trump’s negotiating cards. The problem is that those have not completely worked - yet. Trump is the master at this stuff, however, so I’m hoping he has more card strategies to employ; tactics no one has successfully implemented as yet. Go Donald!