StrategyPage may be referring to the belief that Chiense warhead designs used by Pakistan have been delivered to Iran via the AQ Khan network as a cutout. If so, that isn't new information and does not indicate that Iran has a warhead.

Having said that, the Iranian regime has made its intentions abundantly clear and over the long term, Trent is right. If we wish to keep nukes out the hands of genocidal Islamonazi nutbars who believe in hastening the end times and are the #1 sponsors of global terrorism, neding the mullahs' regime is the only way to do it.

Otherwise, all we're debating is when they get nukes - with all of the follow-on consequences that entails.

Banner in Tehran protests:

"Leave the nukes, Take care of us!"

From Winston

And just how do we know that the mullahs don't already have one, or even several, nukes? The gun-design is a pretty reliable weapon, even though it isn't quite as efficient as one might like. Still, very effective.

Iran could have easily purchased the weapons-grade uranium from North Korea, or possibly harvested it from unusable weapons purchased on the very black market.

The Iranians are awfully bold of late, and I fear they just might have a very nasty surprise up their sleeves.

Just my $.02
DaveK

What YOU seem to be missing is that no one takes seriously the "reports" of a War-Porn site (except maybe Katzman).

To even call this a "report" (saying "....is believed..." without citing source) belies your true propoganda purpose.

Tell us, Tecknowarrior, do you fancy yourself some kind of Cyberspace information officer doing virtual battle with the Evil Enemy?

I'm beginning to suspect you're nothing more than a War hobbyist who gets his jollies from fantasizing about weapons, warfare, and the women who love men who love war. I'd predict this is how you and Katzman joined forces...he also seems to have a perverse fascination with weapons of war.

Guess what, boys? Your toys kill innocent people; so keep it at the fantasy/D&D level and we'll all be better of, OK? Now go run along and play nice.

I disagree a full scale bombing campaign can cripple the current Iranian gov and WMD facilities. After such if the revolution pops up great end of story however if not we sign a treaty well written from lessons learned Iraq Saddam treaty with whatever Iranian leadership is first to accept unconditional surrender before being knocked off like their predecessors by way of JDAM. In it we continue a nation wide no-fly-zone, random inspections (with written consequences for bucking), and as future Intel shows continued strikes on WMD facilities or products purchased from abroad.

The Bush administration's strategic assumption that it only faces Iran's nuclear program in dealing with Iran is an error comparable to the German General Staff's assumption in 1941 that the Red Army's order of battle was limited only to its active duty divisions.

"An error in strategy can only be cured in the next war" - Fritz Halder, chief of the German General Staff.

Whether perverse or not, nuclear weapons are fascinating.

Furthermore, what has been beaten into the ground about guns is also true here: people kill people. The concern at hand is not only about the existence of nuclear weapons, which already are in the hands of an Islamic state (Pakistan), but about who is trying to gain them. Namely, an apocalyptic pawn of a totalitarian regime which is fond of supporting terrorists to accomplish the spread of its religious vision of rule.

The source linked to by Trent may not be very accurate. That does not dissuade me from thinking that this is still a very important topic. What is known is about Iran is that (1) they are intently pursuing nuclear technology, (2) they have turned down offers of superior nuclear energy technology, (3) they have turned down safer (environmentally, workers) means of getting uranium sufficient for an energy project, (4) no one has yet answered why there were detected traces of plutonium and highly enriched uranium found in what limited inspections have been done, and (5) they are pursuing a missile technology far beyond what is necessary to reach their immediate borders.

Nuclear bombs are the mode of delivery but the actual "nuclear weapon" is the industrial cascade of enrichment. Once that is constructed, the Iranians have a "nuclear weapon", the only question is when a bomb is delivered.

SPQR,

I believe plutonium (P-239 with the impurity of P-240) is "cooked" from U-238 in nuclear reactors while U-235 is only naturally occuring, and is found mixed in tiny amounts with more stable U-238. I.e., "ordinary" uranium consists of both U-238 and U-235, with the former constituting about 99+% of the total mass.

Weapons-grade uranium, aka almost pure U-235, is obtained by "enriching" it from its tiny proportions in ordinary uranium. The chief means of doing this today consists of "cascades" of gaseous centrifuges working in concert.

Uranium without any U-235 is called "depleted" uranium - pure U-238, and is used both in M-1 tank armor and as the penetrator part of armor-piercing kinetic energy rounds for tank guns, the A-10 "tank-buster" aircraft 30mm cannon, and special rounds for light armored vehicle automatic cannon.

Tom,

It was my experience that DU rounds are used in just about all tactical aircraft guns. From the M61 Vulcan in the A-7E from my old squadron days to the Phalanx CIWS on board the ships.

My experience, dated as it is, indicates that if it flew and had a cannon, it was firing DU rounds.

"No amount of bombing of Iran's national WMD infrastructure will stop the Mullah Regime from obtaining nukes, bugs and gas -- plus the missiles for delivering them -- as long as the Mullahs are in charge of Iran's oil wealth and can buy WMDs off the shelf from North Korea, China and Russia."

We've been through this. There is a huge difference between buying plans and components for a weapon and buying the weapon itself. You may wish to blur the distinction, but its a blazing red line and certainly casus belli. North Korea might sell an actual device to Iran but there is no evidence anyone else would try. Now if we got into an embargo situation the odds sink even further- the closer the weapon is to surity of use the more suicidal it is to sell it.

A bombing campaign can wreck critical components of the Iranians indigenous program as well as target their missile infastructure. Better yet, an embargo can deny Iran revenue from its oil, and if necessary Iranian oil infastructure can be crippled (nice returning of the favor for the Iranian backed sabateurs blowing up Iraqi pipelines). This will almost immediately drain Iran of petty cash, and what remains will be needed to rebuild their oil infastructure.

Of course Tom, those are the various paths for obtaining the core fissile material of a bomb.

My point is that those who focus on whether or not a bomb can be assembled today, last week or next week are fooling themselves. That it was the creation of the cascade of centrifuges that was the creation of a "weapon", the bomb itself being more analogous to a round of ammunition for it.

During the US's Manhattan project, Hanford / Oak Ridge were "weapons", "Fat Man" was a round.

No amount of bombing of Iran's national WMD infrastructure will stop the Mullah Regime from obtaining nukes, bugs and gas -- plus the missiles for delivering them -- as long as the Mullahs are in charge of Iran's oil wealth and can buy WMDs off the shelf from North Korea, China and Russia.

Regime change is the only option that will stop them. Given the advanced state of Iran's WMD program, time has run out for anything other than an American ground invasion and occupation campaign.

If north korea, china, and russia are all willing to sell iran WMDs, how would they respond to a US ground invasion?

It might be too late for that too.

Davebo,

I doubt DU is used in automatic aircraft or anti-aircraft cannon - those fire fragmention aka HE rounds rather than kinetic energy penetrators because the former are more effective against aircraft. The only DU rounds used by aircraft that I know of are on the 30mm cannon of the A-10.

DU penetrators are used only in the kinetic energy aka "sabot" rounds of tank main batteries - they carry a mix of sabot, shaped-charge and HE rounds, plus at least sometimes cannister. The 25mm chain guns on Bradley AFV and, I believe, the Marine LAV, normally fire HE rounds - kinetic energy penetrators using DU are special purpose runds.

Mark,

You ignore my comments in earlier threads that Iran already has relatively fragile plutonium implosion-type warheads. Those just aren't suitable for delivery by ballistic missile. After testing they will be.

All bombing can do is slow down production of U-235 gun-type warheads which will work when delivered by ballistic missile even without testing.

So we flatten Iran's U-235 enrichment facilities, as well as other things, and stop bombing. Three months later Iran tests a plutonium nuke it had before our bombing started. At that point we know we're maybe 90 days away from Iran having plutonium nukes capable of delivery by ballistic missile.

What would the bombing have done except bought us the 90-180 days?

J.Thomas - knocking off their customers is an effective counter-proliferation policy. Gory examples of this non-proliferation strategy in action can induce compliance without fighting each potential customer. Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi told Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi in September 2003 that "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

J.Thomas - knocking off their customers is an effective counter-proliferation policy. Gory examples of this non-proliferation strategy in action can induce compliance without fighting each potential customer.

Tom, I'm more concerned about russian and chinese responses. They can appease us for awhile, but given our unlimited goals at some point they may recognise the need to stop us.

I have to agree with Katzman and Buehner for the most part.

Bombing would end their plutonium production and set their uranium production back by anywhere from 3-10 years depending on the success of the campaign. We'd pretty much wipe out their ballistic missile capability except for basic scud designs for at least 10 years.

There is very little chance that NK/Russia/China supplied Iran with any HEU/PU or completed weapons for many many reason I won't belabor here. The press and bloggers make it sound a lot more probable than it is. Same with building cascades and weapons. It's not as easy as people make it out to be, especially if you've never done it before.

J.Thomas,

Russia and China can have a war with us anytime they want. Russia is not the problem. China is. China has been the one pushing nuclear proliferation for 10-12 years as its strategy for destroying American hegemony. But China has not challenged us directly and won't. Their economy will immediately collapse if they can't export to us (not to mention what will happen to their POL imports), and effective substitution is not possible.

Andy,

You assume that we know the locations of Iran's plutonium cooking reactors. Past experience with American intelligence is not encouraging here.

Given that we know Chinese designs for plutonium implosion-type nuclear warheads suitable for delivery by ballistic missile have been available to our enemies for many years, your assumption that North Korea has not provided significant amounts of plutonium to Iran is charming.

Tom, the idea that china values their thriving economy enough that they'll always appease us is, well, shaky. Allowing their economy and our economy to collapse together would be far far better for them than a nuclear war.

But there's every reason to think that europe will keep appeasing us. A lot like 1938 that way. They certainly won't impose sanctions on us or shut down our bases or, well, anything else.

China must keep its economy expanding at a high rate to maintain internal stability and stave off the collapse of some bankrupt sectors like its domestic banking; as well as to keep the PLA from overturning the apple cart.

China must also maintain an outwardly aggressive foreign policy, especially with respect to Taiwan, for ideological and internal stability ( again the PLA ) reasons.

One day, perhaps soon, those different concerns will come into conflict and the Chinese communist party will act in a way that will appear to be unpredictable, irrational and counter to its interests to the superficial outside view.

Tom,

I know exactly where Iran's plutonium reactor is. It's not even finished yet. Furthermore, it's a heavy-water moderated reactor. The Iranians only recently completed their heavy water production plant. It will take 3-5 years to produce enough heavy water for their reactor which is probably about when it will be finished. Iran hasn't built a plutonium reprocessing facility yet, so as of now, they have no way to get plutonium from that reactor, even if it was running. So, assuming everything goes well, Iran might have it's own plutonium in 6-7 years provided it builds a reprocessing plant.

As for Iran-NK, what you suggest is improbable at best. Plutonium is extremely valuable stuff. It takes literally years and billions of dollars of investment to make and refine. Assuming the North does have reprocessed plutonium, do you really think a regime like theirs would give it to Iran? No they wouldn't. They'd keep it for their own weapons. You don't put a huge percentage of your GDP into making some plutonium for weapons only to sell it to Iran.

It's possible Iran may have a Chinese design for an implosion weapon. Even so, the Iranians don't have the technical expertise to manufacture such a design anytime soon. Their initial weapons would be much too heavy for their missiles. It would take a couple of years research and testing in order to build an implosion device, maybe more.

Throw this into your mix.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402431.html

Andy,

Your candor is appreciated.

The Khan network peddled the Chinese design to every country with the cash. Iran was one. We know because Libya told us when they gave us most or all of the documents they had bought from Khan. That story has been out there for years.

As for North Korea's gangster confederacy, you are mirror-imaging. Everything is for sale. And they had at least 50+kg of plutonium a year ago.

North Korea's existence as a nation is predicated on Juche, which basically boils down to selling arms to anyone.

If Iran paid enough, they'd get working nukes from North Korea. China would love to see the US get nuked by Iran, allowing it to invade Taiwan and brutally suppress the democracy there (which is a dagger aimed at the regime's legitimacy).

Nike can outsource manufacturing of expensive basketball shoes, Iran can do the same for nuclear weapons. China and North Korea will supply designs, materials, and perhaps even finished weapons as well as missiles.

But of course the US is "enemy" which Europe must "appease." I mean, imagine the US not wanting Iran to nuke us, or even worse trying to prevent Iran from "wiping Israel off the map."

Tom Holsinger

You are not trying to imply that Russia (at its weakest military moment since pre-WW2) is going to put their a*s on the line to jump in on Iran’s side in a war? Russia may not like our conquest of the ME (which after Iran falls we will have accomplished) but there is little they can do about it. If they support Iran with weaponry they will still loose and we will counter with a lot more aggressive support of those Russian dissidents. Hell after such a affront I would bet we would even be willing to turn a blind eye while China “liberated” the huge chicom population in Siberia getting themselves secure natural resources, and as a bonus room to grow their pop. Siberia would do to China what the Mexican purchase did for the US talk about a western migration.

And lets assume Russia is and will continue assisting Iran in their WMD project. With such knowledge would it make it easier to contain a broken bombed out Iran strapped down with strict well-written cease-fire treaty? That treaty giving the US no-fly-zone over all of Iran, random inspections for WMD facilities, and well-written consequences for violation? Or would it be easier to contain a untouched Iran that is empowered by their starring the US down in our current confrontation and getting themselves a real nuke either admitted or not to give them the umbrella to go full alt in terrorist proxy war?

Worst case scenario I see would be the Iranians refuse to surrender and we are stuck in a long slow bombing campaign were we in piece meal carve off swaths of Iran leveraging the revolutionary minority groups Balochi SE, Arab Shia SW, Kurd NW, Azerbaijani N.

Bottom line WE CAN DO IT and WE SHOULD DO IT easy or not it will only be worse if we kick the can.

The idea of the Norks supplying Iran with high grade uranium I don’t buy. Simply put North Korea is just a front company/proxy of China. China is not going to risk Iran either using a nuke on the US or our allies or even worse getting caught attempting to.

Limited BMD is real and very likely to kill a incoming Iranian nuke missile and using proxy terrorist will be very very very likely of failure. Either way we will find out pinpoint Norks and in short order North Korea will become that “radioactive ditch border” Mc Aurther had proposed. China wont let that happen they will either be embarrassed for not supporting their brother Norks or drug into the conflict in full or partial.

J Thomas
I don’t think China is ready to go head to head with the US yet they will need to either secure natural resources or they will need to aquire a Navy & Air force that can at least hold and defend supply channels both over land and by sea for extended periods.

Why would they blow their wad now for little to no gain? China sees what some here and many around the world see the west is a dying culture we are dying from within by a self destructive, self hating, mentality that permeates our nation at the highest levels on both sides of the isle.

No I think China is going Sun Tzu and building their foundation waiting for our fall so they can just step into the void. They understand a large dying animal is most dangerous in its last moments and the wolf who moves to soon is often either killed or mortally wounded in the beast’s death throws. We are sick but still extremely dangerous.

The Chinese are not yet ready for a passage of arms, and trial of strength over the Taiwan Straits. They are preparing for that trial by building a blue water navy, and purchasing a first rate air force. But even when they acquire such military capability, an attempted takedown of Taiwan would be fraught with hazard.

It should be noted that China officially placed a time limit for the settlement of their "Taiwan problem," and the time limit was the year 2020.

That's about how long it would take to fully modernize their navy and air force, and provide ample training time for their men to fully acclimate themselves to their new equipement and technology.

We desperately need a GENUINE naval buildup in the Pacific. We need destroyers and frigates capable of blasting hundreds and hundreds of surface to surface missiles out of the air. And we need more submarines. But instead of a buildup, the Bush administration is slashing equipment procurement. Rumsfeld believes that they can get more with what they already have via "transformation."

He's placing a rather substantial bet on that proposition.

And for my part, I would prefer to hedge that bet.

This isn't the time nor the place to slash our military to the bone. We have to begin to provide for the possibility, MAYBE THE LIKELIHOOD, that we could be facing a military as technically competent as our own, and as well equipped. Moreover, filled with an ardor and elan similar to our forces.

We need several more divisions. We need new ships to provide additional force protection for our Carriers, AND WE NEED SEVERAL NEW CARRIERS. We need that new Naval fighter/bomber, the F-35, and we need that new Raptor, the F-22, and we need four or five thousand of them, on line, ready to go.

The modern Japanese Imperial Navy is powerful, estimates make it the second most powerful naval force on the planet, {it's styled the JMDF, the Japanese Maritime Defense Force}. Japan has enjoyed close relations with Taiwan, and has recently declared the waters around Taiwan to be of "strategic" value. Id est, Japan has said they'll fight for control of those waters.

We should take several of our old, decommissioned Carriers, and refit and overhaul them. Just as we did during the Reagan years. Then donate two of them to the Japanese Imperial Navy, and one to the Royal Australian Navy, and one to the Royal Navy. Total cost would be about 7 to 9 billion bollars, for the overhauls, and the Naval Air compliment attached thereto. But such an expenditure would be well worth it. If we can bring the Japanese into the line, so to speak, with all of their ability, an ability which we ourselves dramatically augmented, we may yet forestall Peking opting for a military solution. We should be trying to complicate the military AND diplomatic picture the Chinese would be facing over the Taiwan Straits. And towards that end, closer relations with India is a wise and prudent gambit. China is looking for dominion over the Pacific rim, and none of the states along that Pacific rim would like to see such a dominion occur. They already are feeling the latent weight and menace of China in their diplomacy. What the Chinese did over competing claims to the Spratly islands is a case in point. They didn't refer the issue to the Hague, nor did they abide a finding at the Hague, no, they simply occupied the islands.

We have to make sure that the Chinese know that it wouldn't be a one on one showdown between the United States and Peking. Through fear and intimidation, they'll be trying to isolate us. Washington has already received diplomatic word from some of our allies, that they are nervous that we are charting a collision course with China over the Taiwan Straits.

China is serious. And we should match that seriousness with imagination, and utter resolution.

I think there's some wishful thinking here about china. If they want their economy to stand they can't depend on us to supply their oil. And with us controlling iran, that's what they'd have.

And yet they aren't strong enough to face us down directly. Maybe they'd accept our victory and bow down to us for the foreseeable future.

Given two bad choices -- give up their trade with us, where we give them dollars they can't spend, versus let us control all their oil imports except those from russia -- which one would they choose?

But they aren't strong enough to confront us directly. They'd have to try diplomacy. They get kazakhstan, uzbekistan, kyrgyzstan, and tajikstan to officially deny us bases and overflights. Also pakistan, of course. In the worst case, india also. To supply afghanistan we'd be legally limited to the turkmenistan corridor. What would Niyazov do? Demand more money, of course. But what would he do after that? Who knows?

Meanwhile china starts to send ground troops to iran through their mutual ally pakistan. Presumably this would be a slow process, but even a few chinese troops provide a tripwire. Also a few troops from russia, kazakhstan, uzbekistan, etc. Maybe india (not through pakistan). The more the merrier. They all say an attack on iran is an attack on them.

Of course it's all bluff. We could still occupy iran and there's nothing they could do about it. If we wound up in a declared war with russia, china, uzbekistan etc, it's no particular problem for us. They'll be too scared to nuke us and our military is stronger than all of theirs put together. We're the only superpower, we can do anything we want. But it's a pretty good bluff.

The US public would freak out. A whole lot of americans would say we can't fight russia and china (and maybe india) at the same time. Maybe the panic wouldn't be all that bad, because nobody would believe we'd actually attack at that point. They just wouldn't believe it.

OK, so we attack iran anyway, and then do the inevitable invasion. Russia and china (and maybe india) don't nuke us. There's a state of war but no fighting outside iran. What next?

There might be a run on the dollar. it might depreciate another 50% or so. If it depreciates 90%, buy.

If the chinese stopped selling to us they'd have to temporarily put a big part of their workforce on welfare -- nobody else wants the stuff they sell us. Meanwhile in the USA WalMart and Target would have a lot of empty shelves. A bunch of US welfare mothers would have a hard time making ends meet. Big shocks for both economies, but those would take months to wind through and the important decisions would have already been made.

The oil markets would go crazy. They'd predict that iranian oil wouldn't be reliably available for years. US gasoline prices might easily to go $6 or $8 ($12 or $16 if the dollar is devalued) assuming we didn't suck down the strategic reserves to keep the price down, and assuming we didn't do a lot of rationing.

OK, so we move in, we destroy whatever iranian nuclear facilities we find (legal or not), and facing increasing domestic opposition we move out again. Anti-US forces that make minor harrassing actions while we pull out declare their victory. The chinese start rebuilding iran.

Do we try to keep the southwestern iranian oil? We could play it as a repeat of Saddam's iran war, against iranians and also russian, chinese (and maybe indian) armies. How would we justify it to the US public? With $5+ gasoline maybe the best line would be "We can't live without those oilfields so we're taking them and nobody can stop us.". If we didn't keep the oilfields, the chinese would get them.

Well, this is a middling-bad case scenario. No actual nuclear war, but muddling through without great results.

In the best case, we bomb iran for 24 hours and destroy their nuclear facilities. The iranians run around in circles and don't manage any retaliation. Nobody else in the world does anything at all about it. The iranians have a mostly-nonviolent revolution and create an entirely secular government with complete separation of church and state. They are chastened and agree to give us half their oil for free while they sell the other half at market prices to rebuild their country. They become our staunch ally and israel's staunch ally and they never again do anything that gives even the appearance of supporting terrorists or muslims. The rest of the world sees what a good job we did and decide we're the good guys after all.

That best case looks pretty good.

J Thomas,
Your "best case" is unfortunately pretty unlikely, as it relies on a greatly exaggerated estimate of the effectiveness of bombing campaigns.

Witness the air campaign against the Serbs, which eventually succeeded ( albeit with some targeting that was very controversial for its emphasis on arguably civilian targets ) only because the Serbs had far less stomach for losses than the Iranians already have demonstrated. The modern USAF is literally unmatched in the world today but it has its limits, especially that of intel and w/o boots on the ground no one will actually know the effectiveness.

"You ignore my comments in earlier threads that Iran already has relatively fragile plutonium implosion-type warheads."

I'd like to remind everyone this is a statement of opinion, not fact. If Iran already has functioning nuclear weapons the equation does indeed change radically, but not by making invasion the wisest solution i think.

Tom and Trent are making a difficult argument: assuming Iran already has nuclear weapons certainly ups the pressure to do something about them, but on the other hand most reasonable people will at that point be less likely to support military action, particularly an invasion which would seem certain to elicit a nuclear response. In other words, the idea that Iran already has a nuclear deterrant in place does not make war a more palatable option, quite the opposite. That, after all, is the point of having a nuclear deterrant in the first place.

The component of a nuclear manufacturing program most easily targeted by bombs is the electrical power grid.

Thomas

The idea that Russia and China are going to risk full-scale war with the US over Iran is ridiculous. Talk about worst-case scenario.

Lets say it so thou, I would agree if Russia and China deployed troops into Iran it would shield them “trip wire” theory a couple of airborne divisions would do it. But the result would be a declaration of war against the US/West and we would overnight change our policies.

China would see their economy crumbled and our economy would recover maybe even better than today because more of our industry would return. If you think the rest of the 3rd world wont jump happily to replace the Chicom labor force you are dreaming. Who will buy all of that Chinese crap except US/EU will Russia bwahahaha right. Not to mention we will counter with recognition and support of Taiwanese independence followed by open support of the growing capitalist movement in China who will be ready to kill after the Chinese economy goes in the tank. What will China do then go hot war risking nuclear exchange they can’t win?

EU would at that moment realize who is their friends and at the same time remember how Russia treats her “allies” see Iron Curtain E. Europe (Hungry anybody). EU may not love US and may resent our power but they well understand to be under US is livable but under Russia is slavery 2nd class citizenship.

Knowing this now we get to the counter that will hit Russia. Embargo even more open very aggressive support of democratic forces in Belarus/Russia/Stans. We will secure current gains in the republics and expand those into the stans. And Russia is worried about limited BMD wait when the new cold war hits and we purposely deploy full alt in E Europe, Ukraine, Caucuses (Georgia/Azerbaijan), Turkeymenastan, Iraq, Japan, Guam, India, ect… to counter missiles not just in N. Korea/Iran but massive numbers from China/Russia with bases close enough to rain the debris down on the launchers.

Polarization is a two edged sword and China especially will be the big loser were as Russia is losing already and will with polarization give their leaders an excuse for failure.

China is on a path to beat US at our own game Economics. A free Iran will sell its oil to the highest bidder just like Saudi Arabia and cheap oil begets more industrial profit China will love that. China’s only hope for secure natural resources is the Stans or Siberia. Even an Iran hostile to the west will leave China with no secure oil resource. The Chinese Navy is at least a generation away from even attempting to be able to defend a tanker from Iran to China and I may add that wont happen at all if we polarize countering with a destroyed Chinese economy and US Navy resurgence that wont allow a Chinese Navy challenge.

If this is the state of the world it would be better to force everyone to put their cards on the table so we can retool for the new cold war otherwise to continue as we are will result in our not retooling while our enemies prepare leaving US vulnerable in the future.

Not precisely on-topic, but it seems there's quite a bit of unrest in Iran at the moment. (http://gatewaypundit.blogsp*t.com/2006/05/tehran-universities-erupt-in-violence.html--fix the URL to avoid spam filter) Whether such unrest is enough for internally-sparked regime change is, of course, unclear, but it's better than nothing.

And for once I hope Ahmadinejad is right on the money:

If we aren't already, we should be doing so given the inevitable conflict Iran is hurtling towards.

C-Low, you might be right on all counts. If any of this happens we're heading into uncharted territory, where everybody involved will have brand new choices and what they've done so far will not provide much of a precedent.

Since it is unexplored territory, though, you might also be wrong on some of it.

I can imagine russia and china and india all risking war to stop our invasion of iran. If we take iran we'll have full control of the whole middle east. And if we own the middle east oil, we pretty much own the world in the short and medium run. Sure, they've been appeasing us so far but if they give us that then it's all over, we're the Hegemon. This isn't like 1938 for them, this is far more important.

But the result would be a declaration of war against the US/West and we would overnight change our policies.

Officially it wouldn't be an act of war at all. They could say iran has agreed to let them inspect and they'll stop any nuclear weapons development. Problem solved. Nobody objects to russia, china, india and pakistan having nukes, and they're qualified to inspect iran's nuclear power program. They'll of course move in some of their own nukes to help protect iran from foreign aggression, should that be necessary....

Officially we haven't said we'll settle for nothing less than regime change under our own direction. So it isn't an act of war or even a declaration of war to nonproliferate iran without us. Even lots of americans would think that those nations had averted a war, and would be glad of it. Our attack on iran could wind up pretty grim.

Of course we'd change our policies, but then so would everybody. Uncharted territory.

China would see their economy crumbled and our economy would recover maybe even better than today because more of our industry would return.

You think so? Why would anybody lend us money to rebuild our industry with high-priced labor? Even without china why would we be competitive with third-world labor, unless we develop a third-world labor force?

If you think the rest of the 3rd world wont jump happily to replace the Chicom labor force you are dreaming.

That's more like it. But who would pay for it? China has been subsidising us to buy their stuff. There are other countries whose currencies are pegged to the dollar so they can subsidise us to buy their stuff. Malaysia. Costa rica. Etc. Can they subsidise us enough? If not, we'll be devaluing the currency and imports get more expensive. Oil gets more expensive, and then how much else can we afford? In the long run we'll do fine. We can adapt to being a third-world nation, and doing it for a war effort is the least emotionally painful way to do it. In the short run....

Who will buy all of that Chinese crap except US/EU will Russia bwahahaha right.

It makes perfect sense for china to put those people to work making munitions, doesn't it?

EU would at that moment realize who is their friends and at the same time remember how Russia treats her “allies”

Uncharted territory. Putin announced that US military spending is 25X russia's. Who looks like the bigger threat? It might make sense for EU to start building up a military. What they might actually do is complain that they're surrounded by militarists and do nothing. I dunno.

Embargo even more open very aggressive support of democratic forces in Belarus/Russia/Stans.

That sounds workable if we have the economic clout. If we're desperate for hard currency and/or cheap imports then our embargo would hurt us more than them.

when the new cold war hits and we purposely deploy full alt in E Europe, Ukraine, Caucuses (Georgia/Azerbaijan), Turkeymenastan, Iraq, Japan, Guam, India, ect…

Sounds good if we have the money and the men for it. And if those countries agree to accept our bases. The less popular we get the harder it is to sell the idea that US bases are good for them. Of course we could put bases all those places whether they want them or not. We're the only superpower and we can do what we want. But it costs.

China is on a path to beat US at our own game Economics. A free Iran will sell its oil to the highest bidder just like Saudi Arabia and cheap oil begets more industrial profit China will love that.

Do you believe that saudi arabia and kuwait and iraq would sell oil to anybody we tell them not to? Do you believe that iran would? If so I have a great investment for you, a wonderful cheap war that will pay off in peace and world prosperity.

More to the point, can you imagine the chinese believing that? Even if we really are going to be all sweetness and light and let them clean our clock economicly out of a sense of fair play, they aren't about to bet their economy on it.

China’s only hope for secure natural resources is the Stans or Siberia. Even an Iran hostile to the west will leave China with no secure oil resource. The Chinese Navy is at least a generation away from even attempting to be able to defend a tanker from Iran to China

There's something to that. China is paying for pipelines from iran because of that, and no doubt they'll want to build more. Notice that we've spent decades talking up the US Navy as guaranteeing the freedom of commerce on the seas, and at the first little disagreement you're threatening to use it to block oil shipments. Of course we could also bomb their pipelines, which is a more obviously violent act of war.

See, by threatening aggressive war against iran and then turning it into actual war against china, russia, pakistan and maybe india, we'd come out looking real bad to the rest of the world including britain. Particularly when our entire excuse for attacking iran in the first place was that we couldn't trust them with nukes, and then we start threatening to nuke people. We'd look suspiciously like a rogue nation. It could wind up with the whole rest of the world cooperating against us. Of course our military is stronger than the whole rest of the world put together, but then again wherever we fight them they have a home court advantage. Uncharted territory, nobody knows where it would end up. Maybe -- don't go there?

"They'll of course move in some of their own nukes to help protect iran from foreign aggression, should that be necessary...."

Didnt they try that in Cuba? Neither Russia nor China (much less India!) are going reignite the Cold War to protect the Mullahs even they must be eyeing sideways by now. Russia, China, and India have Islamicist problems of their own, and they know full well we can help make their lives very difficult indeed if they decide to champion Iran.

The second unlikely parameter is Iran letting itself become a satellite state to any of the above.

China and india are both dependent on mniddle east oil now and for some considerable time. They can't let us control iran's oil. Do that and they've surrendered. It would be absurd for them to let us get away with it, unless they are convinced we'll fail without their participation.

Iran won't accept much aid from them if the iranians think they can win without it. But if it's a choice between going into debt to a coalition of their neighbors versus losing a war to the most destructive military on the planet, which would they do?

Of course none of these people think like we do. So they might simply not think in geopolitical terms at all. Maybe the iranians are convinced that all alone they can win the war against us because their hearts are pure. Maybe the chinese figure that having the USA control the whole middle east is the very best thing for them, maybe they don't want it any other way. They might feel like we're their bestest friends in the whole universe and having us in charge of the world is just peachy-creamy. I dunno for sure. I don't think it's the way to bet.

Regime change is not, by far, the only answer to the Iran problem - in fact it isn't one.

Bombing the place so hard that not one stone stands on top of another is. If you have no electricity, no modern transport, and no money because all your port facilities and oil pipelines are rubble, try building nuclear weapons then.