How do you solve a problem like Iran?

I've only read the first paragraph so far, but it's worth noting that Jeffrey Goldberg was also harping the incredible danger that Saddam posed to the US in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. I've heard him described as a war-monger by folks who don't describe people in terms of mongerness.

With that in mind, the lead-in paragraph sounds pretty in character.

Chest-thumping about invading Iran is nauseating. The big energy multi-nationals and military contractors are drooling at the prospect, but hopefully Obama will not be their puppet the way Bush was. I agree with the above comment.

Yet always so fashionable.

I recognize that I'm reading the article with a bit of a jaundiced eye, but it reminds me heavily of the Pentagon 'leaks' and casual statements last year that rather plainly attempted to box Obama in regarding Afghanistan. An attempt that possibly worked, depending on your viewpoint.

It's off-putting how specifically the piece is calculated to direct the dialogue around Iran. Easily half of the article presses on the inevitability of addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions, preferably militarily. It follows with an explanation of how the Obama administrations stance hasn't been acceptable for either major wing of Israel's government or moderate Arab nations, tosses a few throw away lines about how sanctions have been somewhat effective, but progress continues so you better look elsewhere, and then wraps up with not so sly hints as to the direction that should be taken by Obama if he wants to be a 'great' president.

It's well written and contains some interesting information, but it's framing of the situation all but calls for pre-emptive strikes on Iran by early next year.

For the record, I think calling Goldberg a war-monger is a bit off-base, but mostly in it's lack of specificity. He's in line with the weird but common duality that surrounds a lot of Israeli affairs in thinking that the state could be destroyed at any given moment, but possesses the strength to wipe out any threat that could possibly come to bear on it if only they act decisively and soon. Dangerous worldview, even without it's questionable validity.

I understand Israel's paranoia, but all this BS about Iran has never really passed the smell test. Between the IAEA finding that they weren't violating any treaties to the Bush admin changing the treaty so that they were, it does feel like the same arguments, the same kind of circumstantial innuendo, that led to Iraq.

I remember what happened in 2003 -- a lot of us couldn't believe they'd actually invade, but they did. I tend to think now that Obama won't launch an attack on Iran but I could be wrong. Or Israel could force his hand. I really hope and pray that's not the case. The Iranian people have done nothing to deserve bombs from us.

Well they are hogging all the oil.

You solve the problem by leaving them alone. Israel can do what it likes and the consequences will spring from that.

140 countries and 700 bases worldwide we as in the US of A needs to quit the worldwide policing/empire building bullshit and handle our business at home.

The notion that Iran would complete its uranium enrichment program and either a) fire a nuclear-tipped missile into Israel or b) smuggle a weapon into the hands of Hezbollah with similar results is so crazy I can barely write the words.

The Iranian leaders know perfectly well that if they so much as dream of doing either the entire nation would be obliterated by Israeli and US nukes. They are not stupid.

It's simply nuts to think Iran poses any kind of military threat - to anyone. The Iranian military budget is roughly that of Kuwait's. For decades Iranian military doctrine has been based on the staged defensive tactics of Field Marshall Albert Kesselring in Italy vs the Allies (hold the lines for as long as possible and then fall back to the next rallying point ... repeat ... repeat etc.)

I'm sure Iran in possession of some form of nuclear arsenal is "unacceptable" to Obama because that would be too much like a fair fight. The US is not interested in fair fights. It just wants to carpet bomb defenceless countries back to the Stone Age, murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people and then, adding insult to injury, steal their wealth.

The truth is the US should be utterly ashamed of its many crimes against Iran. It overthrew Iran's democratically elected president (Mossadeg), installed a puppet despot (The Shah) and stood by whilst he tortured, mutilated and murdered over a million Iranians. When they rose up and overthrew that vile dictatorship they gave the Shah refuge and blocked extradition. The US then gave Saddam a pile of money and weapons and told him to attack Iran. It then stood by as an entire generation of Iranians were wiped out - many of whom were hideously murdered by chemical weapons it supplied. It even tried to cook up a deal to send weapons to Iran in order to facilitate another terrorist war against Nicuragua (another country smashed to ruins because it had the temerity to democratically elect the wrong kind of government i.e. one that didn't dance to the US tune). Thousands murdered, mutilated etc.

But it's IRAN that's the problem here.

To answer the question posed by the thread's title:


Assuming all other options fail (which IMHO would include further years of diplomacy), if I were President probably I'd stage some sort of covert op to cause a partial meltdown (or similar deadly containment incident) in one of their nuclear reactors (one of which I gather is set to go online soon), forcing the Iranian public to hate their leaders and lose confidence in the nuclear program, as well as forcing Iran's leaders to slow down and let in international inspectors and aid workers ETC.

Any sort of direct non covert attack could act as a knife in the back of the green movement within Iran, and cause the public to embrace the theocracy again.

Not to make light of Geoff's (awesome) posts, but I always picture his words coming out of his stern-looking avatar, arms crossed, glaring into my soul.

Are you mad? You don't "control" a "deadly containment incident". How would you even begin to plan such a mission when any potential Iranian reactor will have been built from scratch (Iran has been under tech embargo for decades) and behind closed doors? It would take months of close-up study by an army of nuclear scientists just to figure out how it works. Do you think the Iranians wouldn't mind letting them in?

You are aware that a nuclear reactor is, in effect, an atomic explosion contained within a pressure vessel? You don't just open up the top, let out a bit of radiation, and then pop it back down again. Once a reactor goes out of control it is enormously difficult to get it back under control.

The Chernobyl reactor came within an inch of lethally irradiating all of Europe. Sabotaging any future Iranian reactor runs the colossal risk of doing the same to the entire Middle East and beyond.

I mean this is so crazy you make Wolfowitz sound like Noam Chomsky!

Forget it, Jake, it's Princess Kate, and she is a town unto herself.

So you would kill a bunch of inncocent people and contaminate a country for decades?

Are you trying to steal my supervillian crown?

For the record, I'm not for any sort of attack at all. If you were going to do an attack, some sort of sabotage attack would be the only one that I can see solving the problem in a way that wouldn't make the Iranian people hate America any more than they already do. My suggested sabotage attack is based on a limited understanding of nuclear reactors, and our covert ops ability. I assume we probably have people inside Iran who could help out with such a thing, but it's all just speculation. Regardless, if my plan is likely to result in the dooms day scenario you lay out, then OK nevermind. I'm sure you could do something smaller scale to achieve the same effect without risking an uncontainable reactor explosion.


However, I think the march to war with Iran (or the march to convince the American people not to freak out when Israel attacks Iran) is getting completely out of hand and I do not think that the situation is anywhere in the realm of being "attack worthy" yet.

EDIT: how exactly is a non covert strike any less risky than my plan? If Israel blows up a reactor entirely, couldn't that result in cataclysmic radiation fallout?

The people of Iran hate America?

I'm sure you could tamper with the reactor. But no sane person would. Even Israel knows that a full-scale radiological incident would do great damage to its cause. More likely would be a strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure (the uranium refinement plants, or perhaps the power grid).

It's worth noting that soon after Obama became president the US military was instructed to begin development and testing of high-yield penetrators designed solely to hit targets buried deep underground. I assume that if they have not already been shipped to Israel they soon will be.

Also, recently the US and Israel have been moving more nuclear submarines - along with other ships - into the Gulf region. Clearly something is brewing.

The short answer is possibly. The long answer is - it depends on several factors. Take the Chernobyl incident for instance. A cataclysmic radiological incident there was only prevented at the very last minute by the heroic intervention of thousands of Ukrainian miners and fire-fighters (many of whom died of radiation sickness or were crippled by the same) who dug a channel under the reactor and filled it with concrete in order to prevent the reactor core sinking into the water table whereupon it would have exploded sending tons of massively irradiated material into the air to be dispersed wherever the wind took it.

LOL. I didn't think she was that imposing. Thanks for the compliment Jacob. And apologies for the late response (I didn't notice your post until today).

By the way, I just thought I'd add that I found out Geoff Foster exaggerated the risk my plan posed:
Via WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION

Do variations on memes get a ban hammer pass?

Geoff wasn't saying your plan would create a nuclear bomb-like explosion. He said it would create widespread radioactivity. Which it would.

And as to striking a nuclear reactor, did you not read the numerous articles last week basically ticking off the days that Israel had to strike the reactor BEFORE Russia installed the fuel?

No, generally most of the younger people want to open up relations with the west, but if you know anything about the history between America and Iran, you know that antagonizing Iran is the last thing the Green movement needs. It would cause their population to embrace their leaders who often use distrust of the west to deflect from more serious domestic isseus

I think "could" is a better choice than "would". Which should be sufficient deterrence.

I'm sorry, but you have neither read your article or my post.

The WNA link seems pretty convincing. But any future Iranian reactor will be experimental rather than commercial (there's an argument that all nuclear reactors are experimental, but I think in this case there is a clear distinction). Moreover, it will have been constructed under international embargo of hi-tech materials. Which means the Iranians may have to take risks or cut corners etc).

Additionally, whilst the article does include some forms of military ordinance, I doubt that any nuclear facility (with the possible exception of US-built) has been subjected to every form of ordinance in the US arsenal.

You don't need to be a nuclear physicist to know that nuclear reactors and bombs don't mix well.

Not to get into a pissing contest but Kate advocated a "partial meltdown" to which you correctly replied that once out of control they are horribly difficult to put back in the box as it were.

But yeah, seeing as how some heroic measures corraled Chernobyl some I can go with could.