Protest against US actions against Iran

[Ghostbear]

It was only cut off just now, and although I was participatory to it, it's pretty reasonable.

Going in the new direction: Does anyone have any expectation for this protests to accomplish much? I've only heard of them here, and the two news sources in the OP didn't look to be major outlets. I don't support a war, but I can't see a protest for it getting much attention either.

[KnightExemplar]

As far as I can tell, the US's official stance is indeed, that Iran is not building a nuke, but they are a country that is more than capable of building one in short time.

1. I've already posted links to Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense. Build a warhead in one year, and a means of delivery in 2 to 3 years. But Iran hasn't made the decision, they've just left the option open.
2. Here's a link to James Clapper, our Intelligence Chief. ( In charge of CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. etc. )

“They are certainly moving on that path, but we do not believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon," said U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

3. I can't find any direct quotes, but the articles also mention that David Petraeus (Current CIA Director) agrees with Clapper and Panetta on this issue.

The official stance of our lead officials does match up with the protest's stance on the issue: Iran hasn't made a decision to make a nuke. Aside from this issue, the only thing I can imagine protesting over is the sanctions. But there hasn't been any discussion in this thread about sanctions... and whether or not they're worth protesting over. If you're just gonna protest on the nukes issue alone, our Military already agrees with the protesters. I guess you can protest the Republican Debates... but those guys clearly don't know what they are saying anyway.

So the question remaining is: Are sanctions worth protesting over?

[Dream]

So the question remaining is: Are sanctions worth protesting over?

Depends on whether you consider them to be deliberately provocative, and the new version of Iraq's WMD accusations: Get everyone used to Iran as the new boogeyman, with a view to working up to military action in about a year or so. I mean there wouldn't be sanctions without them being the bad guys, right?

I've already posted links to Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense. Build a warhead in one year, and a means of delivery in 2 to 3 years. But Iran hasn't made the decision, they've just left the option open.

Why do you believe US officials on anything to do with this? Didn't you learn from Colin Powell's Security Council bullshit? These people will lie through their teeth to anyone in the world as long as it suits their strategic intentions. No statements from US officials with regard to Middle East policies can be trusted, that went out with the giant war they fought there, and based entirely on a tissue of lies.

[KnightExemplar]

I've already posted links to Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense. Build a warhead in one year, and a means of delivery in 2 to 3 years. But Iran hasn't made the decision, they've just left the option open.

Why do you believe US officials on anything to do with this? Didn't you learn from Colin Powell's Security Council bullshit? These people will lie through their teeth to anyone in the world as long as it suits their strategic intentions. No statements from US officials with regard to Middle East policies can be trusted, that went out with the giant war they fought there, and based entirely on a tissue of lies.

When the "tissue of lies" agrees with the protesters, then there is very little to protest about. Whether or not you believe in it is a separate issue. The important tidbit is that Iran hasn't made the decision yet. I'd say thats important.

[rath358]

So the question remaining is: Are sanctions worth protesting over?

In general, yes. I do not know a ton about the sanctions that are currently on Iran, but sanctions are still a dominance-based, oppressive strategy. Just because there is not direct violence does not mean that they can have pretty extreme effects.

For example, it is fairly accepted that the sanctions against Iraq in the 90's killed half a million children.

[Dream]

When the "tissue of lies" agrees with the protesters, then there is very little to protest about. Whether or not you believe in it is a separate issue. The important tidbit is that Iran hasn't made the decision yet. I'd say thats important.

It would be important if it were directing policy, such that Iran was being encouraged to engage with the international community and not feel it needs nuclear weapons to be secure. But as long as sanctions are being imposed and tightened, the wording of the excuse for doing so is hardly the important point.

[sardia]

As far as I can tell, the US's official stance is indeed, that Iran is not building a nuke, but they are a country that is more than capable of building one in short time.

1. I've already posted links to Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense. Build a warhead in one year, and a means of delivery in 2 to 3 years. But Iran hasn't made the decision, they've just left the option open.
2. Here's a link to James Clapper, our Intelligence Chief. ( In charge of CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. etc. )

“They are certainly moving on that path, but we do not believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon," said U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

3. I can't find any direct quotes, but the articles also mention that David Petraeus (Current CIA Director) agrees with Clapper and Panetta on this issue.

The official stance of our lead officials does match up with the protest's stance on the issue: Iran hasn't made a decision to make a nuke. Aside from this issue, the only thing I can imagine protesting over is the sanctions. But there hasn't been any discussion in this thread about sanctions... and whether or not they're worth protesting over. If you're just gonna protest on the nukes issue alone, our Military already agrees with the protesters. I guess you can protest the Republican Debates... but those guys clearly don't know what they are saying anyway.

So the question remaining is: Are sanctions worth protesting over?

I think its ironic to note that Britain, France, and other European powers believe that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons, while the US is being more conservative. Maybe it's blowback from calling Iraq wrong, I dunno.

I would like to add that the only problem with sanctions is that it doesn't lead anywhere. Something needs to change, either on the Iranian side or Israeli side before we get anything done. Either an Israeli strike on Iran, leading to all kinds of bad shit, or the Arab spring rocks Iran so hard that they back down.
That brings up another point, the middle east has multiple world institutions concerning it, why are we going for consensus in the UN? The factions involve could separate into smaller groups, like NATO vs Iran-Syria-Russia-China group vs Arab league. Making statements by consensus with such disparate groups and goals is silly.

[sourmìlk]

I can't find the exact quote, but the IAEA report said something along the lines of "If there is a purpose for Iran's nuclear program other than to make nuclear weapons, we don't see it." Iran has detonators designed specifically for nuclear weapons, they're enriching uranium far beyond what is necessary for nuclear power, they're outfitting their missiles with the capability to carry a nuclear payload, and they're running simulations of nuclear explosions. The only explanation for the intersection of all these things is that Iran is creating nuclear weapons. Not that Iran is planning on creating nuclear weapons or they have the ability to start creating nuclear weapons, they are working towards the specific goal of creating nuclear weapons.

[sardia]

I can't find the exact quote, but the IAEA report said something along the lines of "If there is a purpose for Iran's nuclear program other than to make nuclear weapons, we don't see it." Iran has detonators designed specifically for nuclear weapons, they're enriching uranium far beyond what is necessary for nuclear power, they're outfitting their missiles with the capability to carry a nuclear payload, and they're running simulations of nuclear explosions. The only explanation for the intersection of all these things is that Iran is creating nuclear weapons. Not that Iran is planning on creating nuclear weapons or they have the ability to start creating nuclear weapons, they are working towards the specific goal of creating nuclear weapons.

And the crux of the problem is that Iran hasn't made a decision yet on nuclear weapons. They have the choice of going all the way, nuke assembled, and attached to a missile launcher. Or they can go the Ikea option, have all the pieces ready, just some assembly required. The world could live with that, even Israel.

The real wild card is what Israel will do. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/world ... ?ref=world
The deputy prime minister is trying to get American support by warning of a fictional threat to the US. If Israel panics or gets too reckless, they could easily cause world war III, with atomic weapons no less. If any of the people in charge are anywhere close to sourmilk's rhetoric, then God help us. If an enemy advocates genocide, and has proven they mean it, then the only option Israel has is to use their own atomic weapons to wipe Iran off the face of the world.

I don't think the US has the political will to stop Israel, nor are sanctions capable of stopping Iran from halting. I'll say it again, we'll have to expect a catalyst to change the current stalemate. My money is on an Israeli military strike or Syria falling via Arab spring. Whatever is going to happen, it will be an interesting year.

[sourmìlk]

Israel has some very strict criteria for when it will and will not use nuclear weapons. The only action they're going to take is that they're going to bomb the nuclear facilities with very heavy bunker busters. This is totally proportionate to the threat. It's what happened with Syria in '07, and nobody spoke of it again.

And considering that the worst Israel will likely do is a bunch of precision military strikes and the worst Iran will do is asplode a nuclear weapon, it's probably best to say that Iran is the wildcard.

[Soralin]

Israel has some very strict criteria for when it will and will not use nuclear weapons. The only action they're going to take is that they're going to bomb the nuclear facilities with very heavy bunker busters. This is totally proportionate to the threat. It's what happened with Syria in '07, and nobody spoke of it again.

And what happens when Iran retaliates against such an action? Or for that matter, just shoots down Israel''s planes after they enter Iran's territory, but before they reach their destination? Syria wouldn't be in a good position to win a conventional war against Israel, but the same doesn't hold true for Iran.

[yoni45]

And what happens when Iran retaliates against such an action? Or for that matter, just shoots down Israel''s planes after they enter Iran's territory, but before they reach their destination? Syria wouldn't be in a good position to win a conventional war against Israel, but the same doesn't hold true for Iran.

I don't see very much Iran can do conventionally apart from shooting missiles, a good chunk of which would be neutralized. Iran's conventional capabilities are largely those of Syria and Hezbollah's.

[sourmìlk]

Iran isn't in good condition to win a conventional war against Israel. Particularly not if Israel has American backing, which they might when they decide to go for it. Israel could easily be in and out of there before Iran knows what the hell hit them.

[Dream]

I don't see very much Iran can do conventionally apart from shooting missiles, a good chunk of which would be neutralized. Iran's conventional capabilities are largely those of Syria and Hezbollah's.

Indeed. It turns out it's really, really hard to fight an expeditionary war without a superpower backing your logistics.

Neither country is going to come even close to thinking about invading the other, it's just not feasible. Both will think very strongly about bombing each other, but neither will be able to effect much in the way of damage, Iran because of Israel's advanced technology, Israel because of Iran's geographical and economic magnitude. A nuclear exchange is out of the question. Iran can't threaten Israel with anything that might justify a nuclear strike, and Iran just plain isn't a nuclear power, and has no nuclear weapons to deploy.

[sourmìlk]

At the moment Israel could actually do a lot of damage in a good bombing run, but as Iran's nuclear program spreads out and advances it's more difficult to stop. So the situation is changing.

[sardia]

At the moment Israel could actually do a lot of damage in a good bombing run, but as Iran's nuclear program spreads out and advances it's more difficult to stop. So the situation is changing.

Bombing would buy at most, 3 years. It would also make the diplomatic situation even worse, depending if you think the situation can be salvaged or not right now.

[sourmìlk]

I really don't think that diplomatic relations between the current Iranian government, Israel, and the US are going to happen. And it could set Iran back a lot further than three years: if they're enrichment facilities and existing stockpiles are bombed, they have to start from scratch.

If Syria is any indicating, a good bombing run shouldn't be too problematic. You can get in and out of there reasonably quickly, the Iranian military isn't going to pose much of a problem, and afterwards it's not like there's much Iran can do. Maybe Hezbollah and Hamas will step up their game, and that's obviously not good, but it's ultimately temporary and probably not disastrous. Worst case scenario, there's a third Lebanon, but this is all speculation and I don't really think that's going to happe. When Israel bombed the Syrian reactor, Syria pretty much even refused to admit something had happened.

[Deep_Thought]

If Syria is any indicating, a good bombing run shouldn't be too problematic.

Syria is no indication whatsoever about a bombing run on Iran from Israel. The Economist had a very, very, in depth assessment of the feasibility of such a run a couple of years ago. First up you have geography against Israel - they share a border with Syria, whereas any mission leaving from Israel has to get all the way across Jordanian or Syrian, and then Iraqi airspace. You're looking at around 800km of flying before you even hit the Iranian border, in airspace that while not outright hostile is not friendly either.

After that there's huge issues about just how good Iran's air defences are. They have pretty close links with Russia and China. Are you willing to bet there haven't been a few AA missiles and radars handed over? Finally there's the whole issue about the Qom facility being built into the side of a mountain. As discussed further up the thread, to my knowledge only the US has access to the Massive Ordnance Penetrator required for such a raid. Even if they handed one or two over to Israel, does Israel have any planes capable of carrying it to Iran?

[sourmìlk]

Israel has quite a few very nice planes. The primary obstacle isn't so much the distance there as it is how spread out the facilities are and their depth underground. And though you'd think that Jordanian and Iraqi airspace would be hostile, it turns out that when it comes to Iran, the Arabs can be very good at cooperating with Israel. They've even let Israel set up listening posts in their country to keep their eyes on Iran.

I didn't mean to indicate that Syria would be an indicator as to how easily Israel could perform the military operations in question so much as I meant to indicate that Syria could be an indicator as to how things work out diplomatically.

[Randomizer]

So, I went out there. I didn't get an exact count, but I think there were around 20 people there. The protest lasted about 2 hours and a number of people passing by took pictures. There was some honking and peace signs given by passing motorists. I didn't have my own sign but the organizer had extras for people to use. All in all it was a peaceful event.