A U.S. lawmaker sent ripples through an international conference in Halifax on Saturday by saying his country should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran that would "neuter" the hardline regime.
OK. Then first define the regime. What would be the specific targets?
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said his party would support military action against Iran that would destroy its ability to fight back while allowing its people to rise up.
To destroy its ability to fight back would require us to destroy its complete military capability. And as for allowing the poeple to rise up, they seem to be doing so already, judging from the protests recently. Now, if we mean 'rise up without opposition', then we'd alsohave to destroy Iran's entire police force. And since we want to preserve the capacity of Iranians to rise up, we therefore need to spare their lives, so nukes become out of the question. Urban warfare, anyone?
But Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay, the host of the conference, said that a military attack on Iran would have negative fallout and that international sanctions are preferable.
Sanctions work only via international collaboration, otherwise it would merely reduce Canada's influence on Iran vis a vis that of Iran's trading partners. Also, if the goal is to ensure the sanctions emancipate the iranian people, then they must be targetted sanctions, meaning no sanctions on communications and travel industries.
Graham surprised attendees at the Halifax International Security Forum with his hawkish rhetoric, saying an attack could cripple Iran's nuclear program as well as its armed forces.
As long as its nuclear programme remains civilian, then to attack it would not only risk nuclear fallout, but also turn public opinon against the US, not only for the nuclear fallout, but also for the double standard whereby the American people are free to benefit from nuclear power, but the iranian people aren't. Isn't this about benefitting the Iranian people after all?
The U.S. and its Western allies, including Canada, believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran maintains it is peacefully pursuing nuclear power to meet its energy needs.
And the US believed Iraq had WMDs too. So, are we to kill and pillage on a hunch? Let hard facts determined by independent international observers determine that. Anything else will be met with suspicion, especially after the Iraq fiasco.
Graham noted that international sanctions are beginning to work on Iran, but said U.S. President Barack Obama should make it "abundantly clear" all options are on the table.
Though we should also abide by the same international standards we expect of Iran, or we'll come across as right hypocrites. This would mean no illegal war on Iran. Any war against Iran must be in full collaboration with the international community. Only that kind of war could be successful in the long run without busting our economy like the Iraq war has done to the US economy.
"So my view of military force would be not to just neutralize their nuclear program, which are probably dispersed and hardened, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard," Graham told a panel.
"In other words, neuter that regime."
OK, and again, details please. What's the plan, and have all contingencies been considered?
Graham said the last thing his country needs is another war, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran.
Again, more hypocricy. If the US can have them, why not iran? We could argue that the difference has to do with respect for international law and human rights. If so, then what about the illegal Iraq war and the geneva Convention in Guantanamo? And what is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations. Not much moral standing there I hate to say.
Asked about Graham's tough proposal, MacKay told a later panel that Canada was not pursuing such an aggressive approach.
"No question there would be a negative reaction to that course of action, although I know that has perhaps provoked some of the hottest discussions in the hallways," the MP for Central Nova said.
MacKay said collective international sanctions can be used to fight Iran and change the country's thinking. He said sanctions are aimed at the regime, not its people.
At least someone on that panel was thinking.
Graham created the biggest buzz at the second annual security conference that MacKay is hosting in his home province. Graham serves on six senate committees, including armed services, homeland security and veterans affairs. He also a member of the air force reserves.
"Nobody would like to see the sanctions work any more than I would because I'm still in the military and I get to meet these young men and women on a regular basis and I know what it's been like for the last nine years," he told an audience of foreign politicians, diplomats and academics.
"And if you use military force, if sanctions are not going to work, and a year from now it's pretty clear they're not going to work, what do our friends in Israel do?"
Ah, nothing like first hand experience of the military.
Israel 'still in the stage of diplomacy'
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said "we are still in the stage of diplomacy and sanctions" but Iran remains a threat.
"Based on experience and looking at the example they're using, which is probably the North Korean example, you can easily see the basic objective is to defy, defeat and deter the whole world," Barak said.
"I will be happy … to end up finding myself wrong, based on future developments, but I wonder whether this is the case."
Another U.S. senator, Democrat Mark Udall, said he wasn't willing to completely support Graham because what he was advocating would have "worldwide repercussions."
"I'm not willing to put my support behind that step here in a theoretical context, but I think you've got to keep every option on the table and let the Iranian regime know that we're deadly serious, not just as the United States of America, but as a world community," Udall told Graham and his fellow panellists.
If we are to go to war with Iran, I'd say we'd have to meet the following criteria:
1. Ensure we have the full support of the UN General Assembly.
2. Abide by all international laws in this war, and ensure we're living up to the standards we're fighting for (remember, Canada has a few outstanding Resolutions against it too!).
3. Plan all aspects of the war ahead of time. This means:
1. Raise taxes as necessary to pay for this war and ensure the economic stability of the country for the long term,
2. Raise taxes sufficiently to also support the veterans who will surely need help after this war ends,
3 Have a cler plan of action, from beginning to end, defining the mission statement clearly and precisely, abiding by the mission statement, plan out in a rational manner how this mission is to be carried out, in detail, define the terms of victory, plan an exit strategy, and identify any possible fallout (e.g. reestablishing government as quickly as possible, gaining the support rather than ire of the local population, protecting Iran's borders from Afghan opium smugglers who could try to exploit the ensuing chaos to export opium around the world, etc.).
If we go to war against Iran, we need to account for all aspects before going in. How we'll fight it, the econoic and social impact on Canada, its allies, neighbouring countries (remember that Iraq is still fragile right now, Iran is much bigger geographically, and we're still fighting a war on Iran's Afghan border, and remember too that many Afghans also speak Persian, meaning that an Afghan-Iranian guerilla alliance would be easy to accomplish, potentially blurring the Afghan-ranian borders).
So, where's the plan?
Whatever, Iran is developing a nuke, we know that, we know there are others doing the
same thing, do we bomb them all? Do you remember, Iraq has WMD, or is that now
forgotten. Iran, through successive government policies of the western powers was
allowed to build up to the level of power they have. Weapons and programs have been
extended by several western powers since the second world war. In fact Saddam was
built up by none other than the American Government. Unfortunately we are the real
creators of our own misery in the Middle East. We have armed all sides to the teeth,
we traded our wealth in the west for their oil, and extended aid to the people that mostly
went to prop up their military and government agencies that continued to call us infidels.
I do think we have to take measures to ensure they are contained, and do not pose an
international threat to the world, or their immediate neighbours. On the other hand we
do not need to create another area of conflict in this region of the world. We, the west
continues to struggle with Afghanistan, and the conflict in Iraq I believe is in recess and
is a long way from over. If we are to look at Iran, we must take a birds eye view of what
reality is.
In Iraq, the latest elections, put the remnants of Saddam's old party in power, the Sunni led
candidates are the single biggest legislative group, and they are mostly old BAATH party
ideology. In Afghanistan we have installed the most corrupt government in the Middle East,
we all know the elections were rigged and had nothing to do with democracy.
Now Iran. We are really sticking our neck out here. The people of the west would not and
I mean would not support such a war. It would cause serious problems in our relations
with France, Russia and to some extent Germany and could in fact fracture the internal
relations of NATO itself. The other result would be to raise all the old hatreds in the
Middle East against Israel and could in fact touch off a number of skirmishes that would
tie us down for years. Lindsay Graham, now there is a name with a past. This dude was
front and center with the Newt Gingrich crowd and at the forefront of the Christian Coalition.
Funny how this guy was hard line anti abortion but he has no problem getting thousands
killed in the here and now. War always starts with verbal trial balloons and this is the first
of many. There are other ways at this point to contain Iran. If Iran were to attack its neighbours
that would be different, but they do not show signs of doing that. America always believes it
can solve the problem with a few bombs. I believe if we got into this one it would be a long
war with the entire Middle East. America would unify the fractured Arab States and we would
see a lot of conflict within western countries. Of course we are watching the nut cases in
America gain influence,
Good post. Besides, Iran is suffering from an Opium drug war on its Afghan border right now. It has enough internal problems not to be worrying about fighting wars abroad right now. Also, with the unrest in Iran itself, I can imagine they'd be plaing it safe not to rock the boat too much.
Also, Iraq has a large Shi'i population, which could easily come to the defence of Iran if we attack it. So with instability in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, we could see a religious friendship developing between Iran and Iraq, and a religious and linguistic friendship between Iran and Afghanistan. Essentially, all three countries risk becoming blurred to a degree, especially Iran and Afghanistan.
Add to that that we are struggling to keep Pakistan stable! And if Pakistan collapses, remember that it shares a border with China! And India!
And to top it all off, if we look at how long it took to fight Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is about twice the size of Iraq, good luck with that.
A war between the US and Iran would mean the end of the US as a world power, not to mention that with all the instability in the middle east, the shockwave of the collapse of Iran would certainly topple all efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing Pakistan to succomb, and so resulting in China and India having to fight back at their borders with Pakistan. Once India and China get involved in the Middle East, it then becomes a world issue.
