Maybe I'm just missing what 'neutral' means.
The Strategy Page has this bit of commentary.
With the level of yelping over the India nuclear treaty and its relevance to Iran getting a nuke, I have a sick feeling that this all just pushes the US further toward taking preemptive military action. The reason that it's a sickening feeling is that I'm not certain that the result will be any less threatening than Iran having a nuke.
Say the US acts and destroys a major portion of the Iranian's present research and development structure for nuclear weapons, what would be the result? First would be the obvious in that they would be pushed back a certain amount of time, but would have even stronger resolve to obtain the weapon. Say they are pushed off by a decade, they will still get the weapon. Until then there will be a substantial increase in the threat of terrorist acts against the US and US interests. No matter how good your shield, at some point an attack will be successful. Also, the mentality of the Iranian regime will harden and the ability to change that hard-core fundamentalist group will likely disappear.
If instead, Iran is allowed to get the bomb, what are the consequences? The first weapons that they have will be large and difficult to deploy, though making them deployable on rockets will likely be the first strategy. Still sets them in the low risk of deployment scenario. A "suit-case" bomb is very improbable in that such technology is substantially more expensive and difficult to create. So timing is still likely a decade away. Though that weapon could be much more of a threat in the end. Will the regime in Iran at that time be more stable? I'm fairly skeptical.
I'm just not sure of what is the better resolution. I'm thinking that in either case they will get the bomb. In one case they will be more likely to try to use it against the west, though I'm uncertain if the regime changes will make it any better in either case. Especially when a more radical form of Islam is involved in controlling the country.
It's odd that I'm leaning on the "not-doing-anything" scenario. I'm usually on the "beat-it-with-a-really-big-stick-and-then-set-it-on-fire" tactic. I wish I had a clearer understanding of the present leadership mentality in the ruling council. The president over there is still pretty much just a mouth piece. Also odd is that I think France had it right to just say, "you nuke us, we're going to burn you into the ground." Not sure it will help, but it makes it completely clear where we stand, though I'm pretty certain that we don't actually have to say the words for that to be understood.
I suppose I'll change my mind as time goes on, since I'm not really strong on either side of the argument at this time.
Russia’s military will not intervene on one side or the other, should the current Iran crisis lead to an armed conflict, the chief of the Russian general staff said, AFP reported Thursday.How is it that they contend they are neutral while supplying Iran with a missile defense system, especially with the level of saber rattling that is going on at the moment?
"You are asking which side Russia will take. Of course Russia will not, at least I as head of the general staff will not, suggest the use of force on one side or the other. Just as with Afghanistan," General Yury Baluevsky told reporters, referring to the 2001 U.S.-led intervention to oust the Taliban.
The general, who heads the Russian armed forces, stressed that he did not think a military scenario was likely in relation to Iran and said that diplomacy was "“the proper course."
"In my view a military solution to the Iranian problem would be a political and military mistake,"” Baluevsky said.
He also confirmed that Russia planned to go ahead with fulfilling an order by Iran for a consignment of Tor-M1 mobile air defense systems, despite U.S. concerns about the deal.
The Strategy Page has this bit of commentary.
China and Russia are not eager for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But both nations are making a lot of money selling stuff to Iran. With oil selling for $70 dollars a barrel, Iran has lots of money, and wants lots of military and industrial equipment that Russia and China can provide. Iran is well aware of this relationship, and is pressuring China and Russia to continue stopping the UN from imposing sanctions. If the UN did impose sanctions, Russia and China could expect to lose billions of dollars of sales each year. Such a problem. China and Russia apparently realize that it could be five years or more before Iran actually have working nukes. In that time, a more rational government could show up in Iran. It's a long shot, but a lot better than trying to strong arm the religious fanatics in Iran to give up their nuclear weapons research.The conjecture on a more stable government coming to Iran is worrisome. It may truly happen, but then again if you follow the 50/50/90 rule the more likely scenario is that a more radical government will be in place when they get the bomb.
With the level of yelping over the India nuclear treaty and its relevance to Iran getting a nuke, I have a sick feeling that this all just pushes the US further toward taking preemptive military action. The reason that it's a sickening feeling is that I'm not certain that the result will be any less threatening than Iran having a nuke.
Say the US acts and destroys a major portion of the Iranian's present research and development structure for nuclear weapons, what would be the result? First would be the obvious in that they would be pushed back a certain amount of time, but would have even stronger resolve to obtain the weapon. Say they are pushed off by a decade, they will still get the weapon. Until then there will be a substantial increase in the threat of terrorist acts against the US and US interests. No matter how good your shield, at some point an attack will be successful. Also, the mentality of the Iranian regime will harden and the ability to change that hard-core fundamentalist group will likely disappear.
If instead, Iran is allowed to get the bomb, what are the consequences? The first weapons that they have will be large and difficult to deploy, though making them deployable on rockets will likely be the first strategy. Still sets them in the low risk of deployment scenario. A "suit-case" bomb is very improbable in that such technology is substantially more expensive and difficult to create. So timing is still likely a decade away. Though that weapon could be much more of a threat in the end. Will the regime in Iran at that time be more stable? I'm fairly skeptical.
I'm just not sure of what is the better resolution. I'm thinking that in either case they will get the bomb. In one case they will be more likely to try to use it against the west, though I'm uncertain if the regime changes will make it any better in either case. Especially when a more radical form of Islam is involved in controlling the country.
It's odd that I'm leaning on the "not-doing-anything" scenario. I'm usually on the "beat-it-with-a-really-big-stick-and-then-set-it-on-fire" tactic. I wish I had a clearer understanding of the present leadership mentality in the ruling council. The president over there is still pretty much just a mouth piece. Also odd is that I think France had it right to just say, "you nuke us, we're going to burn you into the ground." Not sure it will help, but it makes it completely clear where we stand, though I'm pretty certain that we don't actually have to say the words for that to be understood.
I suppose I'll change my mind as time goes on, since I'm not really strong on either side of the argument at this time.
1 comment:
The absolute last thing we would want to see is an Eastern oriented Russia. We really need to keep them focused on the West as much as possible because they then become a possible, if not likely, ally when the East gets uppity (and it will).
Post a Comment