Iran - Dwindling Time, Rising Tension

The prospect of conflict with Iran has eclipsed Afghanistan as the key national security issue with head-spinning speed. After years of bad blood and an international impasse over Iran's disputed nuclear program, why does the threat of war seem so suddenly upon us?

The short answer is that Iran has used the years of deadlock over whether it was pursuing a bomb to get within roughly 12 months of being able to build one. Iran claims its nuclear program is not aimed at building a bomb, but it has refused to drop suspect elements of the program.

Time is running short for Iran to back down without a fight. Time is also running short for either the United States or Israel to mount a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear sites, something that seemed far-fetched until fairly recently. It is still unlikely, and for the U.S. represents the last worst option to stop an Iranian bomb.

[U]The United States has a "very good estimate" of when Iran could produce a weapon, President Barack Obama said this week. He said that while he believes the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program can still be resolved through diplomacy, the U.S. has done extensive planning on a range of options.[/U]

"We are prepared to exercise these options should they arise," Obama said during an interview with NBC. He said Israel has not made a decision about whether to launch its own strike.

Diplomacy and economic coercion are the main focus for the U.S. and its allies, and the preferred option. But the increasingly strong warnings from Obama and other leaders reflect a global consensus that Iran is closer than ever to joining the nuclear club.

In November, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a scathing assessment of the Iranian nuclear program, calling it disturbing and possibly dangerous. The IAEA, a U.N. body, said it had "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions" of a program Iran claims is not intended to build a weapon.

Close U.S. ally Israel is driving much of the burst of international attention now focused on the likelihood of an Iranian bomb and what to do about it.

[U]"When a country that refers to you as a 'cancerous tumor' is inching, however slowly, toward a nuclear weapons capability, it's understandably difficult to relax and keep quiet,"[/U] said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran exert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust. Last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there is a growing global understanding that military action may be necessary.

For Obama, the threat that the United States might use military force must ring true to Iranian leaders while not sounding alarmist to Americans or jittery oil markets. He has been very cautious, which is why his recent, blunter words are notable.

[U]With the clock in mind, the Obama administration is moving much faster than expected to apply the heaviest economic penalties yet on Iran and the oil trade it relies on. This week came a surprise announcement of new sanctions on Iran's central bank, a key to the regime's oil profits.[/U]

[U]Previous rounds of penalties have not changed Iran's course, but the U.S. and Europe, which just approved a first-ever oil embargo, argue that they finally have Iran's attention[/U]. The new oil-focused sanctions are intended to cut the revenue Iran's rulers can collect from the country's oil business without roiling oil markets.

While Obama has until late June to make a final decision on how to implement even stronger financial sanctions, a person advising the administration on the penalties said an announcement probably would come well ahead of that deadline. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House plan is not final.

Among the factors pushing up a decision: the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike and the desire to avoid disrupting oil markets in the summer, when gasoline prices are usually already higher.

With Republican presidential candidates questioning Obama's toughness on Iran, the White House also has a political interest in appearing to take a proactive approach to enforce the sanctions, rather than simply responding to a congressional deadline, the adviser said.

The threat of military action is also used to strengthen the diplomacy.

[U]Countries like China, a major buyer of Iranian oil, don't like sanctions but go along because opposing them may increase the likelihood of military action that would spike prices for the oil they buy, Sadjadpour said.[/U]

White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor would not comment on whether the timetable is being moved up. He rejected the idea that the administration is under the gun.

"We said all options on are on the table. That is not bellicose and that is not new," Vietor said. "What we're trying to do is lead Iran to make a choice."

Israel's president tried to reach out to Iranians with a message of peace, appealing for them to loom beyond the rising tensions. "We were not born enemies and there is no need to live as enemies," Shimon Peres said Wednesday.

But Israel has less time to act than the U.S. if it chose to mount a strike alone, U.S. and other officials said. Because Israel has less firepower, its leaders assess that a unilateral strike would be most effective before summer. After that, by Israeli estimates, Iran may have been able to move too much of its nuclear operation underground, beyond the range of Israeli missile and bomb attacks.

There is another reason that Israeli warnings are growing louder. Although Israel and the United States generally agree on the technical questions surrounding an Iranian bomb, they disagree about how much time that leaves for diplomacy or a last-ditch military strike.

Israeli officials who favor a strike do not want to wait for Iran to amass enough material to build a bomb, a debatable moment that could be as little as six months away. U.S. officials are concerned that the ability to make a bomb is not enough justification for a strike. They have argued there is 18 months or more of flexibility before Iran would pose an immediate nuclear threat.

Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who recently spent a year advising the Pentagon on Iran options, agrees that the window for an effective strike by either country is closing.

"The game is over" when Iran amasses enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, Kroenig said. "If you wait until they screw together a nuclear bomb, it's too late."

Administration officials are in discussions with several countries, including Japan, South Korea, China and India, to try to get commitments on how much they may be willing to reduce their imports from Iran. Iran exports about 3 percent of the world's oil and increasingly has focused on selling to customers in Asia as Western markets have dried up.

Talks are also under way with Turkey, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Malaysia, all main buyers of Iranian crude.

Any sanctions the U.S. ultimately levies would probably target companies in countries that purchase oil from Iran, not central banks, the person advising the administration said.

So they build a bomb. Then what? Has china, india, pakistan russia, france, england isreal or north korea used them?My solution would be to sell isreal a few trident submarines, fully loaded, and let iran know what mutual destruction feels like.This is another great example of sticking our noses into places we didn't know about.We trained iranian pilots, supplied them and trained their secret police, Because of russia.The shah of iran was a despot,and we helped him.The arabs have no love for iran, iranians are persians.they were enemies for years.ITS ALWAYS OIL!!!

[QUOTE=kygorski;480409]So they build a bomb. Then what? Has china, india, pakistan russia, france, england isreal or north korea used them?My solution would be to sell isreal a few trident submarines, fully loaded, and let iran know what mutual destruction feels like.This is another great example of sticking our noses into places we didn't know about.We trained iranian pilots, supplied them and trained their secret police, Because of russia.The shah of iran was a despot,and we helped him.The arabs have no love for iran, iranians are persians.they were enemies for years.ITS ALWAYS OIL!!![/QUOTE]

This is much much different than our cold war with Russia, where Mutually Assured Destruction was a pretty good doctrine. In that case, as in cases with China, India and in some cases Pakistan......the opponents UNDERSTOOD that no one wins in a nuclear confrontation where everyone has enough nukes to destroy the world a few times over.

North Korea is a little different too....they only flex because they are poorer than crap and need food. I suspect they will never use a weapon..........Maybe they will, but prob not. Also, if they used a nuke against the south, they would destroy the very thing they need. LAND.

England and France have NOTHING to do with your argument. They are our allies, and as allies, I don't suspect that they'd use their nukies against us.....

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya........well, they are ALL different. They have ALL stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. They ALL harbor Islamic Terrorists that would love to be killed........to be martyred. They ALL would do anything in this world to obtain a NUKE....not for deterrence, but to USE it to blow up Tel Aviv. Unlike North Korea, they DON'T care about the land or the consequences of a NUKE strike........they want Israel and All Israelis DEAD......PERIOD.

Their second best choice would be a western city. Somewhere in the United States, but if that is not possible.....any western city. Maybe a westernized Middle East country. Maybe one in Italy (really close), or maybe one in France, Germany, or England.

Bottom Line..........The axis of evil....minus North Korea, all want western influence ELIMINATED......and dying in the process is GODLIKE to them.

I don't see why you cannot see this very simply.......SIMPLE issue.

Later,

Geo

You're forgetting one basic principal. Survival.Very few folks care to die for someone elses principles.Human nature will in most cases over ride self distruction.To quote a line from spiderman, with power there is great resposibility.We fail to consider that Persia[iran] was civilized long before there was an america. We are not always right. Western thinking started this mess. England wanted to be the empire that never ceased to exist,there was no irag,there were tribal home lands, that the british thought they could meld together.How did that work out for them.This idea of sanctions is great on paper, it really worked for us on cuba.You know something strange, we have not won a war on our terms since 1946. When we beat their butts, we hang around so they can get pay back.Its getting harder to get the kind of soldiers we need, many cannot pass the required physical challenges.Next we will be mortgaging our educacational standards so we can pay for 'nation building".War is expensive, its not economical. Let the world get another policeman.

[QUOTE=kygorski;480455]You're forgetting one basic principal. Survival.Very few folks care to die for someone elses principles.Human nature will in most cases over ride self distruction.To quote a line from spiderman, with power there is great resposibility.We fail to consider that Persia[iran] was civilized long before there was an america. We are not always right. Western thinking started this mess. England wanted to be the empire that never ceased to exist,there was no irag,there were tribal home lands, that the british thought they could meld together.How did that work out for them.This idea of sanctions is great on paper, it really worked for us on cuba.You know something strange, we have not won a war on our terms since 1946. When we beat their butts, we hang around so they can get pay back.Its getting harder to get the kind of soldiers we need, many cannot pass the required physical challenges.Next we will be mortgaging our educacational standards so we can pay for 'nation building".War is expensive, its not economical. Let the world get another policeman.[/QUOTE]

You are RIGHT.......but It is not the civilized Persian world that wants a NUKE. It is the radicalized CRAZY Islamic HATEMONGER that wants a NUKE. Unfortunately, the Iranian president and regime follows this Islamic HATEMONGER ideology. Just watch his interviews. I don't believe he is posturing, I believe with a NUKE, he'd USE IT.

And you change the subject and move all over the place. This is not about sanctions, this is not about payback, this is not about the kind of soldiers we need, this is not about physical challenges, this is not about mortgages.

THIS IS ABOUT a nuclear IRAN. Deflect all you like. but the fact is. Iran with a NUKE is a very, very deadly IRAN.

We best destroy their capabilities while we CAN.

Later,

Geo

The leaders of Iran believe that they can bring about the return of the 12th Imam. To bring this about it requires death, destruction and basic world wide chaos. These are religious beliefs. You don't have to believe them or not, just know that they believe it. Sitting down with what's his name without preconditions and talking your way to peace will not work. Maybe thats why BO hasn't tried it, he knows.

A caliph, or iman is something like a pope or bishop of canterbury. NOT evry one wants one.Arabs revolted aginst the ottoman turks, who were muslims.Iraqis fought iranians also muslims. Beliving that one sole muslim can unite all of the different factions is a pipe dream.There is unrest in iran right now, has been for years.Our meddling in the middle east did not bring democracy or stability to the region, niether did the colonial french or british.But we forget one thing, who benefits from wars? the poor who are slaughtered, the widowed women, orphaned children, NO think.I remember the "hide under your desk " days, I remember the home fall out shelters. I remember the "good sargent" telling you to get down and cover your self with the pouncho. what they forgot to say was make sure you put your head between your legs.

Most of the stuff I get comes from abcnews.com, which is where the following came from. Although if anyone has watched any national news at all this week then I'm sure by now you have heard about what the U.S. has been doing there this week. I've underlined the things that stand out and grab my attention most...not trying to be all doom and gloom...but I see Iran in the same light as I see those fella's protesting the Sherman-Minton Bridge construction....I have no use for either group. Read on (if you care to)>>>>>>>>>>>

It was just after dawn when three U.S. warships and a carrier strike group began their long, tense transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait has become a pressure point as Iran increases the heat of its rhetoric against the United States because of fresh economic sanctions imposed against it.

In December, Iranian officials warned the United States not to return to the Persian Gulf after the carrier USS John Stennis departed.

“You want to be always at the max state of readiness to respond to anything,” Capt. Richard McDaniel of the USS Sterett said.

Iran recently threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, attempting to use its control over the waterway as a trump card in its standoff with the West.

One-fifth of the world’s oil supply — 17 million barrels a day in 2011 — passes through the strait, and the United States gets approximately 10 percent of its oil supply — 1.7 million barrels a day — from the strait.

Though Iran is not expected to close the strait, [U]analysts still fear that a closure could double the price of oil thereby erasing any prospect of a U.S. economic recovery and plunging the world into a new Great Recession[/U].

Today, ABC News was in the lead ship — the USS Sterett, a destroyer with dozens of missiles and machine guns manned — as the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln steamed through the strait.

On the bridge, the concentration was intense. The captain and crew monitored radar; surveillance tracked everything that moves.

The Iranians silently shadowed the carrier group as well.

[U]U.S. surveillance showed Iranian navy vessels, drones and a patrol plane flying overhead. Much of Iran’s Navy was concentrated here[/U].

The shipping lane is only two miles wide, so there was very little room to maneuver. The USS Abraham Lincoln’s dozens of F-18 fighter jets were on alert today. [U]On Monday, before entering the strait, jets roared off the deck one after another on security and training missions[/U].

[U]Today, U.S. helicopters beamed real-time images back to the ship[/U].

Hours into the crossing, the captain was called to the deck. A small boat — similar to those of [U]Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Navy that have been harassing U.S. ships in the last few months — had approached[/U].

“Any surface vessel that you see out here, you’re definitely going to pay attention to identify, figure out, what they’re doing,” McDaniel said.

The crew quickly determined that it was a smuggler who eventually turned away.

[U]Naval commanders say these transits are routine, but they also fear that miscalculations on either side could threaten not only these ships but also close down the waterway and put the world’s economy at risk.[/U]