CJCS warns against preventive strike against Iran

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...t-attack-iran/

Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.

By Noah Shachtman

Quote:

---

NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.
Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen told a forum at Columbia University.
“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”
At Columbia, Mullen also pushed back on a New York Times report that the Obama administration essentially had no strategy for dealing with Iran if Tehran got to the threshold of building a nuke – without quite going over.
“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said.
But the admiral didn’t detail what strategy all that time and all that focus had generated.
“It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.”
Analysts have speculated that Iran might respond with terror strikes or naval blockades in the Persian Gulf if its nuclear facilities came under attack. Mullen declined to speculate what the results of a strike might be, except to say: they would probably be unexpected, and they would probably be bad.
“From my perspective,” Mullen added, “the last option is to strike.”

But simply accepting Iran as a nuclear state won’t work either, Mullen added. Again: it’s the unintended consequences.
“I worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability. There are those that say, ‘C’mon Mullen, get over that. They’re gonna get it. Let’s deal with that.’ Well, dealing with it has [results] that I don’t think we’ve all thought through. I worry other countries in the region will then seek -– actually, I know they will seek — nuclear weapons as well. And the spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome,” Mullen said.
When it comes to a nuclear Iran, none of the outcomes look very good.

---

No country is gonna use nukes, it would be M.A.D.

Although a problem now is a state-less terrorist nuke attack would not offer a clear target to counter-attack with nuke or conventional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Although a problem now is a state-less terrorist nuke attack would not offer a clear target to counter-attack with nuke or conventional.

---

Exactly. Which is why the Armed Services, I believe, are going to transition into a quasi-police force. Classical warfare doesn't work very well on insurgencies; history shows that only through long-term security measures can an insurgency be defeated. And the military isn't really geared towards that... yet. The Army has certainly been moving in that direction for a few years now though.

Iran is posturing itself for something bigger on the global stage. N. Korea is a cakewalk compared to what these idiots are going to do.

Take the chance and strategically blow em up. Picking the 2 options, I say we give them a nice mushroom cloud.

Pretty sure that China, Russia, and pretty much every other nation on the globe would have a problem with us pre-emptively nuking Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

Iran is posturing itself for something bigger on the global stage. N. Korea is a cakewalk compared to what these idiots are going to do.

---

What are they going to do?

Tell us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

Iran is posturing itself for something bigger on the global stage. N. Korea is a cakewalk compared to what these idiots are going to do.

Take the chance and strategically blow em up. Picking the 2 options, I say we give them a nice mushroom cloud.

---

Obama is a war President. He will eventually give the order to fire upon Iran.

Have you forgotten that this is Iran we are talking about here? Ask yourself this; "What has Iran done for the betterment of that region?" This country has threatend one of our if not the only true ally in that region being Israel.

Tell me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Obama is a war President. He will eventually give the order to fire upon Iran.

---

get it.............:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

Have you forgotten that this is Iran we are talking about here? Ask yourself this; "What has Iran done for the betterment of that region?" This country has threatend one of our if not the only true ally in that region being Israel.

Tell me

---

You didn't answer my question.

What are they going to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You didn't answer my question.

What are they going to do?

---

Ahmadinejad (sp?) has been very vocal of what his intentions are. They are not just petty threats regarding palestine and Israel. Look, your talking to a war-hawk GOP kind of guy who believes in shoot first, as questions later. Unless you've been living under a rock, Ahmadinejad has made it clear what he feels about Jews, the holocaust, Israel, etc, etc, *(and no, just because some Jews that he hasn't screwed with just yet live in Iran don't mean squat of what his intentions are).

He also believeS he is the second coming of whatever, Islamic prophet and believes he must conquer that region for whatever reason Allah has.

You still haven't answered the question.

What are they going to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You still haven't answered the question.

What are they going to do?

---

C.D.,

They are going to be this cool country who listens to it's people's voice, have free elections, treat their women with equality, lend a helping hand to Israel should it find itself in a natural disaster. It's going to build all these neat nuke plants and share it's energy with the entire middle-east including Iraq and Ahmadinejad will win the noble peace prize for loving everyone, including Christians. It's going to build Allah-Land, just like Disneyland and have this gargantuan campaign to invite tourists all over the world.

Silly me for taking your bait. You know what I am talking about. :lol
Good day Mr. Dump.

Why can't you just say what they are going to do?

:rolleyes

TheMan, did you read the article? The one that states that bombing Iran wouldn't make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

:rolleyes

---

Also not an answer.

Tell us what Iran will do.

Stopping processed fuel inside Iran would be more productive than Bombing. I am ok if America's policy with Iran was officially regime change but a majority of Iran's population are for developing the nuke. Just going to war with the Mullahs wouldn't work in this particular situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

TheMan, did you read the article? The one that states that bombing Iran wouldn't make sense?

---

I read the article LnGrrR. I was just adding my 2 cents to the whole Iran thing. You've got to keep on eye on these fellas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What are they going to do?

Tell us.

---

Their arms are sold to kill Lebanese, Israelis, Americans and Brittons to name a few, right now. They train and fund terrorist groups (JAM, SCIRI, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

You've got to keep on eye on these fellas.

---

Plus ears. The dumbass said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

I say bomb them if they don't release those 3 hikers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Plus ears. The dumbass said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

I say bomb them if they don't release those 3 hikers.

---

More than justifies in my book, kidding or not.

What about all the other people who live in Iran besides their jerkwad President? Do they all deserve to get the big one dropped on them, too?

How the fuck are we gonna fight 3 wars at 1 time? and fuck iran

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Their arms are sold to kill Lebanese, Israelis, Americans and Brittons to name a few, right now. They train and fund terrorist groups (JAM, SCIRI, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc)

---

So are you saying they are going to sell nukes to them?

You all are such pussies when asked a direct question

Do you all think Iran is going to use a nuke in a first strike?

Yes or no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You all are such pussies when asked a direct question

---

Relax, you are melting down. Get some sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Relax, you are melting down. Get some sleep.

---

Nah, that was just a simple declaration. You aren't good at this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Nah, that was just a simple declaration. You aren't good at this.

---

Nah, you are upset, again. Chill baby. It's all good. You are not good at hiding your emotions. It's written all over your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Nah, you are upset, again. Chill baby. It's all good. You are not good at hiding your emotions. It's written all over your post.

---

Nah. As I said, you aren't good at this.

I can't help but notice you aren't answering the question either.

Considering the implications, I can't say I'm surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Nah. As I said, you aren't good at this.

I can't help but notice you aren't answering the question either.

Considering the implications, I can't say I'm surprised.

---

I hope you get your questions answered. LATER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I hope you get your questions answered. LATER

---

Disingenuous.

Certainly you won't answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursTillTheEnd

How the fuck are we gonna fight 3 wars at 1 time? and fuck iran

---

divide and conquer. we already have control of two of their borders. itd turn two wars into one big, maybe more easily managed, war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

What about all the other people who live in Iran besides their jerkwad President? Do they all deserve to get the big one dropped on them, too?

---

We must liberate these people from their lives! For freedom!

The underlying desire for nations to have nuclear weapons is defensive. Mutually assured destruction has been the basis for arms buildups for the last 50 or so years; along with conflict-spiral model of escalation in armed conflicts. The whole point of acquiring nuclear weapons within a conflict context is to break the conflict-spiral paradigm.

Which means that relations with Iran, as the General rightly pointed out, are incredibly dicey. On the one hand, you need to figure out how to remove the need for them to actively pursue acquiring a nuclear weapon. The underlying flaw in the M.A.D theory is both sides of the conflict being rational participants. Thus, from an American view, can Iran really be counted on to be rational?

However, how do you mollify Iran without compromising your own defensive and offensive posture, to the point of weakening your perceived strength globally? Thus, potentially opening yourself up to increased aggression.

The US best hope likely is to continue to try and peaceably counterattack Iran's pursuit/perceived need for a nuclear weapon, while allowing progressive elements in Iranian society to come to the fore. Then, the US must hope that the progressive elements are amenable to promising a non-nuclear Iranian state in exchange for some sort of concession package.

That is essentially, the best case scenario. Which probably won't happen, but one can hope.

Quote:

---

Which means that relations with Iran, as the General rightly pointed out, are incredibly dicey. On the one hand, you need to figure out how to remove the need for them to actively pursue acquiring a nuclear weapon.

---

Which is nigh impossible. Even if we were to assure the country that we would protect them, I still don't see how it wouldn't be beneficial to own the nukes yourself. Unless a country has their OWN nukes, they can't truly be independent.

Quote:

---

Thus, from an American view, can Iran really be counted on to be rational?

---

I believe Iran would act rationally. The biggest concern is whether their security would be up to snuff, in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Which is nigh impossible. Even if we were to assure the country that we would protect them, I still don't see how it wouldn't be beneficial to own the nukes yourself. Unless a country has their OWN nukes, they can't truly be independent.

---

In this case, that's true.

But, for example in the case of Japan, Germany and so forth, while they possess the capability they are shielded under another nuclear power's umbrella and seem to be happy with that status. If it were beneficial for all nations to possess nuclear weapons, they would. Within the context of developed nations, having nuclear weapons is not a necessity for external defense; as long as there is an umbrella.

With regards to Iran, they are driven to have a nuclear weapons for defense purposes. I think the US is trying to figure out inducements, not necessarily extension of an umbrella since this could quite possibly interfere with pre-existing mutual defense pacts and create additional foreign relations issues, to keep Iran from actively pursuing nuclear weapons. I do not think the US will be successful. But, I think that is what they are trying to do.

Quote:

---

I believe Iran would act rationally. The biggest concern is whether their security would be up to snuff, in my mind.

---

My reading is the US is concerned with their potential/future rationality. They still buy into the theory of rogue states. Which, within a context of nuclear non-proliferation and so forth, you could argue they are.

I agree completely with you in terms of security; they are likely envisioning a post-USSR problem. But more, I think in the here and now they are concerned with a radical nuclear equipped Iranian government and the subsequent arms spiral in the region.

As I said earlier, the purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is to create a ceiling on conflict-spirals. Just look at Pakistan and India. I think the US and other nations fear that M.A.D would not be a deterrent in a Middle East conflict spiral if all possessed nuclear weapons.

To restate, I agree with the CJCS. The only real option open to the US at the moment is a diplomatic solution.

Quote:

---

But, for example in the case of Japan, Germany and so forth, while they possess the capability they are shielded under another nuclear power's umbrella and seem to be happy with that status. If it were beneficial for all nations to possess nuclear weapons, they would. Within the context of developed nations, having nuclear weapons is not a necessity for external defense; as long as there is an umbrella.

---

This is a good point. TBH, I'm surprised any country without nukes considers that acceptable.

Still, I can't foresee a future where Iran is willing to acquiesce, BEFORE they develop nuke capability. I could be wrong, of course... who would've thought Japan would be a strong ally merely a few decades after Pearl Harbor?

I can understand your concern that Iran may not be rational, ie. willing to submit to the M.A.D. theory. It's hard to say. I would argue that not even Achmanijehad (however you spell it) is sane neough to recognize that any nuclear strike would welcome immediate and devastating retaliation. I don't know how much I'd be willing to gamble on that, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

The Iranian goverment concerns me, so let's kill tens of millions of innocent civilians, and deal with pictures of babies with their skin falling off with only us to directly, clearly, and undeniably be blamed for it.

That won't be a diplomatic nightmare, or prompt every other sane government on the planet to impose all sorts of trade embargoes, completely destroying our economy.

---

Normally one would put a :lmao here because this is the most incredibly stupid thing anyone has said in these forums that I can ever recall.

But butchering millions of people, and horribly disfiguring hundreds of thousands more is not really a laughing matter.

Seriously, that is the stupidist fucking thing I have ever heard on the internet, and that is saying something when you have people claiming to have seen the elder Bush "morph into a reptile".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Plus ears. The dumbass said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

---

That is a common misconception. He actually said that "history will erase Israel from the map.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

The phrase was mistranslated. The full and better translation can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...22_translation

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Quote:

---

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"

The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)..[12][13]

---

Subtle, yet vastly different from the way it is normally portrayed as.

The phrase's intended meaning by the speaker was to essentially deny the legitimacy of Israel's existence, not to call for or propose a military strike to obliterate the physical existance of Israel.

To be clear:
Amedinidork is an idiot. He is an uneducated, overly religious theocrat, who very explicitly denies the holocaust, and believes in a host of rather bizarre and illogical things.

But this is not one of those cases.

He says enough real stupid shit to prove him an idiot, and unstable.

BUT

When people like you parrot this mistranslation, you play right into his hands by providing evidence that his enemies will "make up any lie" to discredit him.

Please stop helping him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So are you saying they are going to sell nukes to them?

You all are such pussies when asked a direct question

Do you all think Iran is going to use a nuke in a first strike?

Yes or no.

---

I think their track record would indicate that. So yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I think their track record would indicate that. So yes.

---

You do know that the shia consider Al Qaeda to be apostates, and vice versa, correct?

The ultimate origin of any such weapon used would be undeniably determined by analysing the specific isotopic signature of the bomb, whether it was a full out nuke, or just a dirty bomb.

Anybody with nukes would know this, and would know that the US and the international community would be outright forced to do some pretty dramatic shit.

There is some possibility, yes, but it is far from a certainty that anybody in power is realistically that stupid or crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I think their track record would indicate that. So yes.

---

By your logic, we should have already nuked Pakistan.

Quote:

---

NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.

Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

---

So, the Chairman is actually saying, "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

If it were me, I'd choose doing. It's what my favorite Democrat, Give 'em hell Harry Truman chose. And, history has acquitted him quite nicely; Jon Stewart calling him a war criminal, notwithstanding, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, the Chairman is actually saying, "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

If it were me, I'd choose doing. It's what my favorite Democrat, Give 'em hell Harry Truman chose.

---

What do you propose we do?

Pre-emptive attacks sacrifice a lot of moral authority, and that has some rather serious repercussions, as we found out under the last president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, the Chairman is actually saying, "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

If it were me, I'd choose doing. It's what my favorite Democrat, Give 'em hell Harry Truman chose.

---

Fail.

Truman didn't attack or nuke The USSR or China while they were successfully developing nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

So, the Chairman is actually saying, "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

If it were me, I'd choose doing. It's what my favorite Democrat, Give 'em hell Harry Truman chose. And, history has acquitted him quite nicely; Jon Stewart calling him a war criminal, notwithstanding, of course.

---

Here's the big reason why we should wait... there's a good chance that Iran would use their first nuke on Israel, instead of America. Then we can blast them without being hurt at all!

However, if we nuke them first, we look like the bad guys, and we IMMEDIATELY make every country even slightly against us work 10,000X harder to get a nuke.

And as far as superpowers... how do you think Russia and China would react if we nuked Iran? It'd be just the thing they need to try to slam us economically, and most of Europe would be obliged to go along.

Then, of course, there's the moral argument... you know, hundreds of thousands of innocents killed. Not sure if that sways you though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Here's the big reason why we should wait... there's a good chance that Iran would use their first nuke on Israel, instead of America. Then we can blast them without being hurt at all!.

---

I like it! It's just hard waiting. 2 wars is good but 3 is a charm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I can understand your concern that Iran may not be rational, ie. willing to submit to the M.A.D. theory. It's hard to say. I would argue that not even Achmanijehad (however you spell it) is sane neough to recognize that any nuclear strike would welcome immediate and devastating retaliation. I don't know how much I'd be willing to gamble on that, though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The ultimate origin of any such weapon used would be undeniably determined by analysing the specific isotopic signature of the bomb, whether it was a full out nuke, or just a dirty bomb.

Anybody with nukes would know this, and would know that the US and the international community would be outright forced to do some pretty dramatic shit.

There is some possibility, yes, but it is far from a certainty that anybody in power is realistically that stupid or crazy.

---

Newsweek just posted an interesting quote on their blog:

"The needed successor to MAD is, therefore, nuclear forensics and attribution: the science of inferring the source of nuclear materials from their chemical and isotopic properties. “If we could pinpoint the origin of nuclear material used in a terrorist attack, it would deter countries from allowing poor security at their nuclear facilities,” says Benn Tannenbaum of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). More bluntly, if hostile regimes perceive that the U.S. has an effective nuclear attribution capability, they might be deterred from helping terrorists obtain nuclear materials. (At least 40 countries have enough highly enriched uranium to build a crude atomic weapon, and 13 have enough reactor-grade plutonium.)"

The call then is for the creation, or investment of, policing type powers with a certain group. In this case, it is then an extension of the MAD principle.

This, as RandomGuy and LG, could be an effective inducement for increased nuclear security in developing nations.