IAEA Agrees: Iran Has the Bomb
[Guest post by DRJ]
The International Atomic Energy Agency agrees Iran likely has the bomb and is making progress on being able to deliver it:
“The [IAEA] document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.”
As a candidate, Barack Obama hoped he could convince Iran to disarm. If that doesn’t work — and it won’t — the Administration’s answer is containment and, at best, another cold war.
— DRJ
Invasion of Iran and overthrowing the government is probably not doable without a draft.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/17/2009 @ 11:36 amNo, aphrael, the US Army is constructed on a TOE and doctrine that does not match a conscript army. I.e., you can’t operate the current US Army with draftees.
And our army is today large enough to do the job but at the cost of abandoning other commitments.
While we easily have the military capability, we do not have the political will to accomplish it however.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/17/2009 @ 11:40 amSPQR is right… the Army would probably be less effective, not more, with millions of conscripts.
I also think it’s just plain incorrect that we don’t have the ability to win a war against Iran. I bet we could. Could we win the postwar? I doubt it, but perhaps.
I think an AirForce bombing war is extremely cruel, but that is a democrat’s style of war. See Kosovo. Of course, we don’t really even have a democrat in the white house. Obama is not going to bomb Iran.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/17/2009 @ 11:45 amIs someone calling for an invasion of Iran, aphrael?
JD (9019c8) — 9/17/2009 @ 11:53 amObama will do nothing. We’ll get sucked into a world war because of Obama spinlessness, only this war will be nuclear.
PCD (02f8c1) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:01 pmHarry Truman nuked Hiroshima in lieu of ordering an amphibious invasion of Japan because it would have cost the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers, many of them draftees. When the Japanese wrongly assumed we had used our only nuclear bomb, Truman nuked Nagasaki.
Official Internet Data Office (a2a60f) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:02 pmOIDO,
After nuking Tehran and Qom, how many more times will Iran have to be nuked before they either surrender or is one sheet of green, glowing glass?
PCD (02f8c1) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:07 pmBarack Neville Chamberlain Obama at his finest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:10 pmbut at the cost of abandoning other commitments.
Right.
I was assuming that we wouldn’t abandon other commitments in order to take out Iran’s government.
My point remains: the only way to fight a war in Iran while continuing to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to dramatically increase the size of the army, and the most likely way to do that is a draft.
This would cause all sorts of problems and is likely a bad idea.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:11 pmOdd, I thought the Obama miracle had all of our troops out of Iraq? ( Just kidding, aphrael ).
Amusingly, our Iraq and Afghanistan deployments would be in position to effectively support an Iran operation. We’d have to abandon some other commitments to free up resources.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:16 pmaphrael,
I can’t see Obama ordering the invasion of any country given his views and those of his base. I’m not even sure he would invade another country if America were attacked, unless the attacker is a nation-state and its culpability is clear (both of which strike me as unlikely given the rise of terrorism). So while I agree a draft would be difficult, it’s the least of the problem.
DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:18 pmHow many more times will Iran have to be nuked
What’s the over/under?
Official Internet Data Office (a2a60f) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:22 pmDRJ: that’s probably fair.
Maybe I should rephrase.
I’m presuming from the use of ‘at best’ in your comment that you would prefer something stronger than a cold war.
My question is: what would you be willing to give up to have that stronger response? What cost are you willing to pay?
I think – aside from the left-wing objection to going to war in general, that’s a big part of the problem here: in order to eject the Iranian government and take the bomb from the Iranian army, we have to give something else up … and whatever that is, it’s likely to be something we value more than we value a temporary (at most a decade or two) delay in the nuclearization of Iran.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:23 pmOdd, I thought the Obama miracle had all of our troops out of Iraq? ( Just kidding, aphrael ).
While I voted for the man twice, and while I opposed starting the war in Iraq, I never thought this would happen — and at this point I think the whole region would be better off if our troops stayed there for another decade.
The people on the left (and, to be honest, on the right) who thought an Obama Presidency would mean instant withdrawal from Iraq were voluntarily deluding themselves.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:25 pmnot to worry. rainbow farting unicorns now provide us with a fool proof nuclear umbrella. no outbound nukes can ever pass through it. that is the goal, right?
quasimodo (4af144) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:25 pmaphrael #14, well said mostly. I agree that his supporters who believed his rhetoric were deluding themselves but I think his opponents had to treat his rhetoric straight.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:28 pmI am still confuzzled. Who is calling for an invasion of Iran?
JD (9019c8) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:31 pmaphrael: “…the only way to fight a war in Iran while continuing to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to dramatically increase the size of the army…”
Depends on the objectives. If we don’t want to replace the regime, and just want to destroy their ability to build nukes and promote mischief, occupation isn’t necessary. It will mean destroying part of their civilian infrastructure, and not repairing it.
Look up the Herman Option
Yeah, the price of oil will spike for a while, but there are a lot of oil tankers being used for storage right now, and demand is depressed, so there won’t be any real shortage and prices will quickly re-stabilize.
LarryD (feb78b) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:34 pmno way. NPR was very very clear that the Iranian ones are very peaceful and nice and you shouldn’t believe anything Bush tells you. They did like 100 stories on it.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:36 pmJD: I took the post as a criticism of not doing anything stronger than a cold war.
If you want something stronger than a cold war, what are the options? Invasion is the easiest option to come up with, although Larry presented a different alternative.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:41 pmaphrael,
“At best” is a recognition that there is the possibility of “at worst.” IMO the “worst” is what will happen if the U.S. is drawn into war because Iran uses its bomb on Israel or another nation, or shares its technology with others so they can use it.
I expect Obama to use diplomacy and probably also covert military force against Iran, but it never occurred to me that he might order pre-emptive, large-scale military action against Iran. I consider that so unlikely that it’s not even on my radar.
DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:43 pmBarack Obama will do what he’s told I think.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:48 pmI’m a child of the Cold War, aphrael. The best part of that was we never had a nuclear confrontation and “only” had conventional wars like Vietnam. I don’t look forward to another Cold War with a nuclear nation, especially a rogue nation like Iran, but it’s far worse to contemplate the world at nuclear war. So “at best” is my way of saying there is something much worse.
DRJ (a51a0e) — 9/17/2009 @ 12:50 pmI blame Bush, for he had many opportunities to take action against Iran yet chose not to, and in doing so left Iran to Obama, who Bush believed supremely unqualified.
And Obama will not take any action against Iran, military or economic, to keep them from having a bomb, nor will he do anything when Iran uses it… so any discussion of what to do is merely an academic exercise.
And I blame Bush for Obama. If Bush hadn’t been such a total f***up, the GOP wouldn’t have nominated the anti-Bush McCain and the public wouldn’t have been desperate enough to turn to Obama.
And this is for someone who voted for Bush twice. Yeah, Gore and Kerry would likely have been worse, but that doesn’t cheer me up.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:01 pmI don’t blame Bush. He was confronted with a lying dirty socialist media like NPR and Newsweek and such and also a CIA what was up to their necks in anti-American faggotry. Mr. Bush had to pick his battles and he did a fair job of it I think.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:07 pmI am kind of at a loss for words with this one. I do not like to think the worst of people, but I cannot think of a rational reason why this would be done in such a manner, on this date, etc … This is almost as bad as the way we are pissing on Honduras.
JD (9019c8) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:23 pmNonsense:
IAEA Denies Report It Is Sure Iran Seeking Atom Bomb
VIENNA (Reuters) – The U.N. nuclear watchdog said Thursday it had no proof that Iran has or once had a covert atomic bomb program, dismissing a news report that it had concluded Iran was on its way to producing nuclear weapons. In a statement, the International Atomic Energy Agency reaffirmed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei’s September 9 warning that allegations the agency was sitting on undeniable evidence of Iranian bomb work were “politically motivated and baseless.”
nonsense (ccac28) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:30 pm“With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran,” the statement said.
(Reporting by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Matthew Jones)
The IAEA has no credibility. It’s like NPR or Robert Gibbs or like Robert Gibbs being interviewed on NPR or like NPR interviewing Barack Obama while Robert Gibbs listens to the NPR in his Prius.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:35 pmInserts fingers in ears and starts chanting LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
JD (9019c8) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:35 pm#27
Yeah, that sounds more like the IAEA.
Same game they were playing back in the 1980s with the Iraqi nuclear weapons program:
“Nuclear weapons program? What nuclear weapons program? We don’t see any nuclear weapons program!”
Same old, same old.
Dave Surls (19c23e) — 9/17/2009 @ 1:40 pmWhat happyfeet said @ #25.
Old Coot (83c1d1) — 9/17/2009 @ 2:00 pm… but Obama said he would talk to them and bring them to their senses.
Today is a “red letter” day for “Smart Diplomacy“
Neo (7830e6) — 9/17/2009 @ 2:31 pmWhen are we going to start seeing some positive results from the new hopey changey super spectacular diplomacy that Barcky promised us?
JD (9019c8) — 9/17/2009 @ 2:37 pm“When are we going to start seeing some positive results from the new hopey changey super spectacular diplomacy that Barcky promised us?”
On the same day they start serving ice water in hell.
Dave Surls (19c23e) — 9/17/2009 @ 2:44 pmhappyfeet: what battle did Bush pick? Afghanistan, bipartisan support. Iraq invasion, little opposition. What did he do? Oh yeah, he did nothing about Iran…. North Korea…. and did nothing about Russia but look into Putin’s eyes.
steve sturm (3811cf) — 9/17/2009 @ 2:55 pmwhat if Bush were Romeo in black jeans?
what if he were Heathcliff? it’s no myth I don’t think
Many people are free what weren’t.
America may never be so noble again ever.
I say thank you.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 9/17/2009 @ 3:18 pmI’m afraid a “Cold War” is not an option. It takes two to have a cold war, and by pulling back on the missile defense shield, after deciding to stop production of the F-22, after choosing to take the side of oppressive leftists in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Honduras, is there one tiny shred of evidence that President Obama is interested in any kind of conflict? Maybe a “luke-warm” war of some sort like a “under-scaled” effort like in Afghanistan to show he isn’t totally unwilling to protect US interests.
We know he’s a leftist on domestic policy. We knew he would not be aggressive in projecting military power internationally. But it appears we have to fear not only a naive/”pacifistic” foreign policy, but downright capitulation.
If I lived in Georgia, I think I would apply for a passport yesterday.
I even more think Bush should have sent F-22’s to sterilize the skies over Georgia, but even if he had, it would have simply postponed the inevitable.
Letting Saddam or Iran go unchecked was like 1939, what we are doing now is an invitation for the Soviets to retake Georgia, Ukraine, and who knows what else, and Europe can’t do one thing. If it does, the heat gets turned off.
Absolutely hellish scenario. I hope I’m over reacting…
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 9/17/2009 @ 3:39 pmJimmy Carter is the gift that keeps giving.
Worst President Evah!!!!!!
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/17/2009 @ 3:49 pmThe time to strike Iran is now, before they have developed a nuclear capability, and have deployed the Soviet/Russian air-defense systems that they are buying.
AD - RtR/OS! (5b5739) — 9/17/2009 @ 3:54 pmBomb everything of any strategic value:
power plants, refineries, all military/scientific installations, pipelines, rail-marshalling yards, etc.
Put on a complete naval embargo/blockade:
Nothing goes in, nothing comes out. Let the AF and USN air assets deal with whatever naval assets that Iran has – most should have been sunk where they were sitting on the first day.
Start flying Predators along the northern Iran border and interdict anything that moves, day or night.
Bring US assets in Iraq and Afghanistan to bear along the Iranian borders.
Publicly proclaim support for regime change from within, and send the opposition assets to deal with internal oppression.
If Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weaponry, and the means to deliver same, we are in the shits, and so are whatever friends we may have left, and that appears to be a rapidly shrinking list.
You are not overreacting, MD. Allies of the US who are on the sharp end are starting to get the message that Obama will sell them out.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/17/2009 @ 4:19 pmHappy 70th anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Poland!
Christian (22837a) — 9/17/2009 @ 4:24 pm“Worst President Evah”
Nah, FDR was the worst president in the history of the U.S. (by far…and, that’s saying something).
Carter was just a bumptious clown. Turns out that there are worst things than having a clown for POTUS.
Dave Surls (19c23e) — 9/17/2009 @ 5:19 pmAD: a bit too much for my part. I’d be happy with targeted strikes (both air and ground) at Iran’s facilities, keeping in mind that we don’t need to destroy every facility to knock them back years.
And of course all of this is academic as Obama will do nothing of the sort… not now, not later.
steve sturm (3811cf) — 9/17/2009 @ 5:41 pmComment by steve sturm — 9/17/2009 @ 5:41 pm
That is correct, re The LiC; but, the question is, how big of a roadblock will he present to actions by the Israeli’s (and there is also the question of “other Arab States”).
AD - RtR/OS! (6d52d9) — 9/17/2009 @ 5:51 pmI fully support the “Herman Option”, and believe that effective regime change can only come about with the virtual destruction of the Iranian economy in a very public manner.
We have forces on two sides of Iran, and the capability to suppress the Mullah’s ambitions, if not to completely destroy that regime.
This is why regime change in Iraq was so important:
It gave us a relatively secure footprint in the heart of the Middle-East from which to project power politics against those who would harm us or our allies.
FDR was the worst president in the history of the U.S.
Well, if Roosevelt were like the current guy in the White House, I’d guess there would have been 2 Neville Chamberlains in the world: the one from Britain and the one from the US. So I’d say when it comes to “worst,” we’re likely living with it (or him) right now.
Beyond WWII, I really didn’t know enough details about FDR, a major icon of the Democrat Party and liberals, until just the past year or so, and really until just the past several days.
I first came across research from UCLA economists that concluded Roosevelt, far from deserving his reputation as the wonderful, reassuring figurehead during a time of financial misery (as “lefty” propagandists — among others — want us to believe) actually exacerbated the duration of the Great Depression.
Then, most recently, I came across information on FDR’s tax returns that indicated he — true to form (certainly as a limousine liberal, or liberal in general) — was rather stingy in his charitable giving. To top it off, he tried to avoid paying higher taxes on his income, which was being taxed at a higher rate due to legislation that he had encouraged and implemented in the first place.
Any slight doubts I may have had until then about FDR making the effects of the Great Depression worse (or his being just a typical, idiotic, ass-backwards “lefty”) were eliminated when I also read that he said tax-exempt municipal bonds, among other things, should not be tax exempt.
Mark (411533) — 9/17/2009 @ 5:58 pmMark, you may enjoy reading Thomas Fleming’s “The New Dealers’ War” for a counter-conventional wisdom version of FDR in WWII.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/17/2009 @ 6:04 pmAD is right… look at a freaking map, and it’s obvious Bush had his eye on Iran the whole time. India, Iraq, Afghanistan?
We have perfect field position. I may not like John Mccain, but he would have been able to deal with Iran. Now, Obama is ruining our advantage. Now is the time to deal with Iran. Well, yesterday really.
People bashing Bush for not solving this problem fail to realize he leveraged everything, including his popularity, just to squeak out a victory in Iraq. It was nearly impossible with our press and democrats, but he did it. Iran was out of the question, but it wouldn’t have been if politics stopped at the water’s edge. The GOP barely backed Bush up anyway.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/17/2009 @ 6:12 pmI liked the Cold War when our adversaries were on record as, officially, denying the existence of a happier next life.
Richard Aubrey (b9f9fe) — 9/17/2009 @ 6:54 pmWhen the turbaned nutcases start saying, “Make my day,” they’re talking about being transported to a fourteen-year-old boy’s wet dream in perpetuity.
I believe I heard el Baradei’s wife had family in Iran. That would tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully.
Richard Aubrey (b9f9fe) — 9/17/2009 @ 6:55 pmEveryone here, including aphrael, knows of course that this means that Israel no longer has any option but to launch a preemptive strike against Iran.
And, I think everyone knows that that will lead to nothing but to ruin and despair, except maybe for Israel.
We got change, but the hope is waning.
Ag80 (592691) — 9/17/2009 @ 7:29 pmChange for the worse is still change.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/17/2009 @ 8:02 pmAlright, I only read the first few comments (famous last words) but at my temp job (at 40 percent of my old pay) I talked to 4 reservists and 1 fine young lad who had gotten through the hard part of enlisting into the Corps. They all say the same thing: The waiting list to get IN is long. In fact, January was the earliest entry date this young lad could get.
I don’t think the draft is necessary. I believe there are plenty of young adults desirous of defending this country militarily, but the recruiting numbers have been shrunk by those at the top.
While “entitlement” spending is parabolically approaching the Y-axis under BHO, the defense budget is parabolically approaching the X-axis. (Note: Only in DOD is a cut a cut; in all other areas, a slowing of the scheduled above-inflation-growth-rate is a cut.) And that is the real problem. It took Reagan years to repair all the damage Carter did to DOD. It will take the next conservative President years to fix what BHO is doing.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 9/17/2009 @ 9:27 pmObama thought he was being slick, and changing the subject from Obamacare and the whole ACORN scandal. He thinks he’s using Putin, but who’s really being played…
http://powip.com/2009/09/smart-power-or-the-sting/
The only question: Is it The Hook, The Tale, or The Sting!
Carter II; If only we were so lucky! The world is far more dangerous now…
Bob Reed (99fc1b) — 9/17/2009 @ 9:38 pmPOWIP mentions that a war with Iran would increase the price of oil and benefit Russia financially. Obama is playing a very difficult game, and he just played his best diplomatic card, and he got worse than nothing for it.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/17/2009 @ 10:03 pm