Iran to Kick Off WWIII?

[Grifman]

I want to see more direct, active engagement with Iran to avoid war before we start beating the drum so loudly.

You seem unable to realize that you can only talk when the opposite party is willing to talk:

The previous round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program broke down over a year ago in Turkey after Iran presented conditions considered unacceptable to the West.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/inte ... index.html

Now Iran wants says it wants to talk:

Iran is ready to revive talks with the world powers, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday, as toughening sanctions aim at forcing Tehran to sharply scale back its nuclear program.

Even so, he insisted that the pressures will not force Iran to give up its demands, including to continue enriching uranium, that led to the collapse of dialogue last year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... nejad.html

If Iran's pre-conditions for talks are them retaining their nuclear program, then what is there to talk about? How do you propose getting them to put it on the table? Again, just saying "Talk to them" is meaningless if the proposed subject to be discussed isn't even on the table for discussion!?!

Define "more active engagement" for me. Exactly how would that differ from what has been done already? How would you get Iran to put the nuclear program on the table when they have now publicly said it is not a topic for discussion?

I want to see MORE public discouragement from the WH against Israeli military strikes (they did this once, several months ago...time to step it up).

Why public? And how do you know that they are not privately warning Israel? Public warnings may not be the best way to go.

We all know Israel can't wait to strike militarily...so we need to calm that shit down pronto, IMO.

Actually we don't know that Israel "can't wait to strike militarily". Do you have some inside source that no one else has?

FYI we are talking with the Israeli's:

In a series of private meetings with Israeli counterparts in recent weeks, Western officials have counseled patience, saying recent economic sanctions and a new European oil embargo are pummeling Iran’s economy and could soon force the country’s leaders to abandon the nuclear program. Yet Israelis are increasingly signaling that they may act unilaterally if there is no breakthrough in the coming months, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

He "offered" to talk, almost 4 years ago? That is not enough, again, especially from someone who was lashing out at the previous president for being hasty to go to war without following enough diplomatic routes.

The offer is out there and was rejected. There's no reason to make another offer unless you think it will be accepted and the Iranians have given no indication that it will. The President would look naively foolish if he were to make an offer and be turned down again. All Iran has to do is send a signal if they want to engage in serious talks.

[Carpet_pissr]

Excerpted from Trita Parsi's book about Iran (and was in several papers as well I believe as part of an editorial). Bolding is mine.

Again, I am down on Obama more than I would be if he had not harped on Bush so much (although granted, Bush's policy was simply to ignore) What can I say? I had and have high expectations - the man spoke with authority and promise in his pre-election rhetoric, and I am holding him to those standards:

"Ultimately, the failure of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran came down to insufficient political will and the atmosphere of mis­trust that granted neither side any margin for error. The proposals put on the table may have been flawed; at different points either side may have played for time or sought to delay talks; and goodwill measures may not have been reciprocated. But these phenomena do not make U.S.-Iran talks unique; they are common features in almost all negotiations. Talks that succeed do not do so because the pro­posals are flawless and because both sides play fair. Rather, they succeed because the many flaws associated with the talks are over­come by the political will to reach a solution.

The will for a diplomatic solution must be strong enough to overcome every last hurdle. In the case of the U.S. and Iran, diplo­macy was in effect abandoned at the first hurdle. And though the desire for diplomacy was genuine, the administration's lack of confi­dence in its chances of succeeding -- several high-level officials in the Obama administration told me separately that they did not believe diplomacy would work -- raises the question as to whether the White House would fully invest in a policy it believed would fail. Lack of political will also plagued the bureaucracy. After the June election in Iran, in particular, a combination of fear and "old think" -- sticking to old patterns because they were comfortable and less risky -- set in and helped reduce the will to see diplomacy through."

[Rip]

Other sources within the Guards report that following Barack Obama’s letter to the Iranian leader last month requesting negotiations, Khamenei ordered Iranian officials to speak positively about holding nuclear talks and giving hope to Obama and other Western leaders that a negotiated solution is possible.

This was apparent after a trip of U.N. nuclear inspectors to Iran this week, who called the talks positive.

At the same time, his directive to the Guards ordered a speedy completion of the Iranian nuclear bomb program in which Guards’ missiles can be armed with nuclear warheads. Khamenei believes once that’s achieved, Iran can test a nuclear bomb, letting the world know that Iran has joined the nuclear-armed club and that any confrontation will result in destruction of much of the Western world.

The Revolutionary Guards not only can hit all U.S. bases in the Middle East with their ballistic missiles but also reach most capital cities in Western Europe. The Guards, with the help of China and North Korea, are working on intercontinental ballistic missiles. But more dangerous to America, as reported last July, is the Guards action in arming their vessels with long-range ballistic missiles and their expansion of their mission into the Atlantic Ocean, right into the Gulf of Mexico.

Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/iran-warns-world-of-coming-great-event/

Sounds like all that plays right into their plan.

[Jag]

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

Sounds like all that plays right into their plan.

I assume you mean the neocons.

[LawBeefaroni]

Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

Bullshit. One EMP? 66% fatalities in one year? Must be the same 2/3s that prefer Dentine to brushing.

What it would do, however, is assure the total destruction of Iran.


World Net Daily is a laugher but I bet all that fear mongering sells a lot of their sponsors' survival food.

[Rip]

Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

Bullshit. One EMP? 66% fatalities in one year? Must be the same 2/3s that prefer Dentine to brushing.

What it would do, however, is assure the total destruction of Iran.


World Net Daily is a laugher but I bet all that fear mongering sells a lot of their sponsors' survival food.

Maybe they took a survey? Both my daughters have said they would die if I didn't let them get on the internet/phone/xbox numerous times.

[Rip]

Some more interesting reading.

A new report from the Bipartisan Policy Center said the United States needs to put more teeth into its threat to use military power against Iran.
The Washington think tank recommended in its report that Washington should undertake visible, credible military preparations to go along with more intense sanctions and diplomatic efforts.
The military activities could include naval deployments, military exercises and positioning supplies in the region.
To stop Iran's nuclear clock, the report said, the United States "needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily, by the United States."
The report also said the United States should give credibility to the Israeli military threat against Iran by selling Israel two to three KC-135 aerial refueling tankers and 200 GRU-31 bunker-buster munitions.
Former Sen. Chuck Robb, who co-chaired the task force that wrote the report, said the group advocates neither war nor a military strike at the moment, but believes the United States will only be effective if it takes credible steps to let Iran know it is serious.
Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said Panetta "has made it clear that he is comfortable with the military capabilities we have and operate in the region."
However, Kirby said, "the U.S. military must and will be ready to provide the president options should those options be desirable."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/world/meast/iran-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Grifman]

Excerpted from Trita Parsi's book about Iran (and was in several papers as well I believe as part of an editorial). Bolding is mine.

Again, I am down on Obama more than I would be if he had not harped on Bush so much (although granted, Bush's policy was simply to ignore) What can I say? I had and have high expectations - the man spoke with authority and promise in his pre-election rhetoric, and I am holding him to those standards:

"Ultimately, the failure of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran came down to insufficient political will and the atmosphere of mis­trust that granted neither side any margin for error. The proposals put on the table may have been flawed; at different points either side may have played for time or sought to delay talks; and goodwill measures may not have been reciprocated. But these phenomena do not make U.S.-Iran talks unique; they are common features in almost all negotiations. Talks that succeed do not do so because the pro­posals are flawless and because both sides play fair. Rather, they succeed because the many flaws associated with the talks are over­come by the political will to reach a solution.

The will for a diplomatic solution must be strong enough to overcome every last hurdle. In the case of the U.S. and Iran, diplo­macy was in effect abandoned at the first hurdle. And though the desire for diplomacy was genuine, the administration's lack of confi­dence in its chances of succeeding -- several high-level officials in the Obama administration told me separately that they did not believe diplomacy would work -- raises the question as to whether the White House would fully invest in a policy it believed would fail. Lack of political will also plagued the bureaucracy. After the June election in Iran, in particular, a combination of fear and "old think" -- sticking to old patterns because they were comfortable and less risky -- set in and helped reduce the will to see diplomacy through."

You still haven't answered any of my questions. You making statements like the one above:

The will for a diplomatic solution must be strong enough to overcome every last hurdle

What you fail to realize is that some people just don't want to negotiate. They cannot be negotiated with. There was no negotiating with Nazi Germany. England, France, event the USSR all tried that - and in the end, it didn't work because Hitler was set on a path of European domination. Your negotiating partner had to be willing to, you know, actually negotiate. Hitler only negotiated at Munich to buy time. He only had a treaty with the USSR until he was ready to attack them. Some people just can't be dissuaded from their goal.

The West has made a number of offers to Iran, yet Iran refuses to curtail it's uranium enrichment.

Answer these questions:

1) How does the US get Iran back to the negotiating table?
2) How does the US get Iran to forgo uranium enrichment?'
3) What more can the West offer than what they have offered already?

The last meetings between the West and Iran broke off because Iran refused to stop uranium enrichment. If stopping that is the bottom line goal for the West, then what more is there to negotiate?

[Grifman]

Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

Bullshit. One EMP? 66% fatalities in one year? Must be the same 2/3s that prefer Dentine to brushing.

Uh, some actual reading on the topic says perhaps otherwise.

First off, no electricity for months or perhaps years (since many components of the electrical system will have to be manufactured in order to be replaced). No oil or natural gas since there will no electricity either for production/distribution. So how will you heat your house? How will you refrigerate your food? How will food get to you since there will be no gas for trucks to distribute it. What will you do since you can't access your financial data since all the banks will be shut down? How would you even buy anything if it even was available without any money? How can you even earn a living with no electricity for your factory, store, restaurant, other place of business? What about hospitals, how will they function without electricity once the generators run out of fuel? How can people travel since the electronics in their cars will be burned out? And what about clean water? No pumping stations working, no filtration/sewage plants, etc.

[YellowKing]

There is some debate on how catastrophic it would actually be. You also have other factors like the size of the bomb and it's altitude. Iran would have to deploy an enormous bomb at an extremely high altitude to be able to shut down the entire country. I'm skeptical they would have the technology to do it to that extreme.

It would hurt for sure, but I think we could rebuild - after turning their entire country into glass of course.

[ydejin]

One of my biggest concerns about attacking Iran is that most of the estimates I've seen say that it will delay their nuclear program for 3-5 years. An attack which strengthens the current Iranian regime, causes major economic disruptions, risks attacks on Israeli citizens, and on US soldiers in the region to gain five years respite makes no sense at all.

If we were talking a long enough delay that the regime might actually change in the meantime, then sure, it might make sense. Say if we were talking a 15-20 year time frame, then sure. But what's likely to happen here is that the Iranian regime gets strengthened, chances of a transition from religious zealots to a democratic government gets reduced and we still have to deal with an Iranian bomb in 3-5 years.

[Victoria Raverna]

Why don't let them have the bomb? The last time anyone use nuclear WMD bomb to attack was back during WW2 when US dropped two bombs in Japan.

Pakistan and NK has nuclear bombs and the world is still here and not destroyed.

Pakistan and India both have nuclear bombs and that is probably the main thing that keep them relatively peaceful to each other.

[Kraken]

Why don't let them have the bomb?

Because of their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, because they are angling to become the region's superpower, because they are our sworn enemy, because their neighbors would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrents, and because the oil must flow. For starters.

[Victoria Raverna]

Why don't let them have the bomb?

Because of their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, because they are angling to become the region's superpower, because they are our sworn enemy, because their neighbors would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrents, and because the oil must flow. For starters.

And why believe their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, but not believe their repeated vows that they're developing nuclear for non weapon usage.

[Combustible Lemur]

Why don't let them have the bomb?

Because of their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, because they are angling to become the region's superpower, because they are our sworn enemy, because their neighbors would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrents, and because the oil must flow. For starters.

And why believe their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, but not believe their repeated vows that they're developing nuclear for non weapon usage.

It's safe for your children to cross the street without looking.

Cheese cake tastes like shit.

2 lies, only one is deadly.

[Grifman]

There is some debate on how catastrophic it would actually be. You also have other factors like the size of the bomb and it's altitude. Iran would have to deploy an enormous bomb at an extremely high altitude to be able to shut down the entire country. I'm skeptical they would have the technology to do it to that extreme.

It would hurt for sure, but I think we could rebuild - after turning their entire country into glass of course.

I wasn't talking specifically about an Iranian EMP, but showing Lawbeef how bad it could be and that 66% deaths might not be unrealistic if an EMP was used optimally.

[Grifman]

Why don't let them have the bomb?

Because then Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt will probably want one. Which would then lead to other nations wanting one. If you think more nations with the bomb is a good idea, than go ahead.

[Grifman]

And why believe their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, but not believe their repeated vows that they're developing nuclear for non weapon usage.

Because they have been caught in a number of lies about their nuclear program, because the IAEA says they are developing weapons, because reasonable offers have been made to Iran to control uranium enrichment but keep their civilian program going and they have refused. All of the evidence and their behavior leads to the conclusion that they are developing the capability to create nuclear weapons.

[Rip]

And why believe their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, but not believe their repeated vows that they're developing nuclear for non weapon usage.

Because they have been caught in a number of lies about their nuclear program, because the IAEA says they are developing weapons, because reasonable offers have been made to Iran to control uranium enrichment but keep their civilian program going and they have refused. All of the evidence and their behavior leads to the conclusion that they are developing the capability to create nuclear weapons.

While at the same time indicates the other vow is no lie at all, in fact everything points to a desire to do just that.

[Kraken]

Why don't let them have the bomb?

Because of their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, because they are angling to become the region's superpower, because they are our sworn enemy, because their neighbors would feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrents, and because the oil must flow. For starters.

And why believe their repeated vows to wipe Israel off the map, but not believe their repeated vows that they're developing nuclear for non weapon usage.

Do you believe it?

[LawBeefaroni]

Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

Bullshit. One EMP? 66% fatalities in one year? Must be the same 2/3s that prefer Dentine to brushing.

Uh, some actual reading on the topic says perhaps otherwise.

First off, no electricity for months or perhaps years (since many components of the electrical system will have to be manufactured in order to be replaced). No oil or natural gas since there will no electricity either for production/distribution. So how will you heat your house? How will you refrigerate your food? How will food get to you since there will be no gas for trucks to distribute it. What will you do since you can't access your financial data since all the banks will be shut down? How would you even buy anything if it even was available without any money? How can you even earn a living with no electricity for your factory, store, restaurant, other place of business? What about hospitals, how will they function without electricity once the generators run out of fuel? How can people travel since the electronics in their cars will be burned out? And what about clean water? No pumping stations working, no filtration/sewage plants, etc.

Again, I ask, one EMP? Or more specifically, 1 Iranian ship launched nuke generated EMP?

I know what an EMP does. You're assuming that Iran can somehow get the proper yield to around 280+ miles up, directly over the center of the country, which is what it would take to generate an EMP that would knock out the entire US. All this from a first gen warhead on a first gen ballistic missile fired from a commercial vessel off the coast?

Applying your scenario to Iran is fear mongering at best.

[Grifman]

Again, I ask, one EMP?

Depending upon altitude and bomb size, yes.

Or more specifically, 1 Iranian ship launched nuke generated EMP?

Probably not but you didn't seem to be questioning specifically an Iranian EMP, but EMP's in general. So apparently I misunderstood you.

I know what an EMP does. You're assuming that Iran can somehow get the proper yield to around 280+ miles up, directly over the center of the country, which is what it would take to generate an EMP that would knock out the entire US. All this from a first gen warhead on a first gen ballistic missile fired from a commercial vessel off the coast?

And you seem to assuming that I'm talking about an Iranian EMP, which I am not. I thought you were questioning whether ANY EMP could have that effect.

Applying your scenario to Iran is fear mongering at best.

Except that I'm not applying it to Iran. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[LawBeefaroni]

Probably not but you didn't seem to be questioning specifically an Iranian EMP, but EMP's in general. So apparently I misunderstood you.

I was responding directly to this:

Any Iranian military or commercial vessel easily could get right outside the U.S. coastline and in less than 60 seconds fire a ballistic missile armed with a nuclear payload and detonate it over U.S. skies in an electromagnetic attack that would plunge America back into the 18th century.

Studies show within just one year after such an attack, two-thirds of Americans would cease to exist and the rest would live under dire conditions.

I called BS, both as supposed fact and as pretext to war with Iran.

[LordMortis]

Iran are preparing for WWIII

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/07/sim ... -toy-list/

D'oh!

Iconic American superheroes like Superman and Spider-Man can remain, however, because they’re known to battle for the oppressed.

Well, that's good news.

In January, Iranian police shut down dozens of shops for selling Barbies, acting on long-standing negative sentiments toward the busty blonde doll. Despite ongoing bans on Western books, movies and fashion, Iranians have accessed Western culture through the black market.

D'oh!

[Grifman]

I called BS, both as supposed fact and as pretext to war with Iran.

Actually, it appeared you were calling BS only on the EMP impact, which is what I was addressing.

Your quote:

Bullshit. One EMP? 66% fatalities in one year? Must be the same 2/3s that prefer Dentine to brushing.

No harm, I just thought you were only questioning what an EMP might do to the US.

[Isgrimnur]

January 11th: An Iranian scientist is killed by a magnetic bomb. Iran accuses Israel, they deny it.

February 13th: Israeli diplomats are injured in a bombing in India, one in Georgia thwarted. Israel accuses Iran.

February 16th: Iranians manage to blow up their own base of operations in Thailand, with evidence of targeting Israeli citizens seized.

Thailand's police chief said the Iranians who were arrested after accidentally setting off explosives at their rented home in Bangkok were plotting to attack Israeli diplomats, bolstering claims by Israel that the group was part of an Iranian-backed network of terror.

"I can tell you that the target was specific and aimed at Israeli diplomatic staff," police chief Gen. Prewpan Dhamapong told a Thai television station late Wednesday.

He also confirmed that the type of explosive — a homemade "sticky" bomb — found at the blast site Tuesday matched the devices planted on Israeli diplomatic cars in India and Georgia a day earlier.

"The type of improvised explosives they used were the same. The type that was attached to vehicles," Prewpan said, confirming that an investigation into a magnetic strip found in Bangkok was the same type used in New Delhi.
...
Authorities in Thailand are still trying to determine if the Iranian men were part of a larger terror group. Two of the men were detained in Bangkok on Tuesday after fleeing the destroyed house, while a third was arrested Wednesday in neighboring Malaysia after boarding a flight from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur overnight.

[LawBeefaroni]

Don't forget this one. Lots of work going into making the case for war.

[Rip]

Interesting new article.

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

If Obama were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

Earlier this month, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a "sweet spot", where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that as a "best guess".

"One theory is that Netanyahu and Barak may calculate that if Obama doesn't support an Israeli strike, he's unlikely to punish Israel for taking unilateral action in a contested election year," said Kahl. "Doing something before the US gives the Israelis a bit more freedom of manoeuvre."

Obama is also under domestic political pressure from Republican presidential contenders, who accuse him of vacillating on Iran, and from a Congress highly sympathetic to Israel's more confrontational stance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action

[Rip]

Time to start setting pieces on the board.

Iranian warships have entered the Mediterranean Sea for only the second time since the 1979 revolution.

Two Iranian navy vessels entered the Mediterranean in February last year. Israel called it a "provocation".

Admiral Sayari was quoted by Irna as saying: "The strategic navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has passed through the Suez Canal for the second time since the Islamic Revolution."

The mission conveyed "the might" of Iran to regional countries and Tehran's "message of peace and friendship".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17083791

Relax, peace is on the way.

[Carpet_pissr]

Nothing says "peace and friendship" like a navy's destroyer of course. Don't think those words mean what he thinks they do.

[Rip]

Occasionally they even put NK to shame when it comes to misdirecting criticism.

Iran's representative to the IAEA denied earlier Friday that officials blocked inspectors from visiting a crucial nuclear facility last week.
Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told CNN that Iran is ready to continue discussions about its nuclear program.
"We are trying to be cooperative," he said.
IAEA inspectors left Iran Tuesday after two days of talks failed to reach an agreement on how to verify Iran's claim that its nuclear program is purely peaceful and after inspectors said they were denied an opportunity to visit a military base in Parchin.
Inspectors believe the base may have been the site of tests related to nuclear weapons.

Soltanieh said the team was not prevented from visiting the site, but that inspectors left a day early. He said access to Parchin would be granted once Iranian officials and the agency can agree on the conditions under which such a visit would take place.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Mr. Fed]

How can Iran make itself seem more reasonable?

I know! Execute a Christian for apostasy!

[ydejin]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

[GreenGoo]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

How long does the regional war set them back?

[Holman]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

How long does the regional war set them back?

More importantly, how long does it set us back?

[ydejin]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

How long does the regional war set them back?

I do wonder if that's part of Netanyahu's calculations -- "We can only delay Iran's nuclear plan by a year, but if we suck the US into a war, they'll take care of it for us."

More importantly, how long does it set us back?

Yep, pretty much the last thing we need right now is to get sucked into another war in the Middle East.

[AWS260]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

How long does the regional war set them back?

From the article:

The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that America’s arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program — if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation.

[Rip]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

ahh, BUT

The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that America’s arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program — if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation.

Not accepting that this is how it would play out even the simulation ended with up to three years by the time the dust settled and that is without Obama going full scale.

I am pretty sure the simulation also assumed the Israeli strike was a lone strike without considering other non-traditional simultaneous attacks that I am pretty certain will coincide with an attack. Not to mention if a larger conflict erupted they are certain to launch multiple recurring attacks.

[noxiousdog]

US Military Wargames conclude that Israeli attack will set back Iran's nuclear program one year and would likely lead to a regional war, drawing the US in.

how about a nice game of chess instead?

[Little Raven]

I am pretty sure the simulation also assumed the Israeli strike was a lone strike without considering other non-traditional simultaneous attacks that I am pretty certain will coincide with an attack.

That's because all Israel can really do is a lone strike. They don't have the strike capacity for anything more, and they're probably already doing everything they can in the 'non-traditional' department.

If Israel really wants to end Iran's nuclear ambitions by force, the best bet is to get a war going between Iran and the US.