US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 17.27 GMT

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.

The president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to pressure Tehran.

But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.

"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

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

[davidthegnome]

1. Another war?

Or will we just lend Israel some of our weapons? Either way... Iran is not Iraq, the Chinese and the Russians are heavily invested there and will be less than pleased if we decide to start blowing things up. I don't think they'd take military action on Iran's part, but the Russians in particular will probably supply weapons (to Iran's military) perhaps more, if it comes to that.

I can't blame Israel for being nervous, considering the Iranian government's sentiments and rhetoric. So far though, it's just (I think) been sabre rattling. We are treading on dangerous ground here, even to imply that we're willing to take military action in Iran, let alone planning for it... is going to make some people nervous and a lot of people angry - important people who may be able to do something about it.

The more this situation escalates, the more I wonder if we made enough of a difference in 2008. There must be other options, numerous alternatives to attempt (diplomatic, perhaps covert) before we decide to launch an all out attack. Can we afford another military conflict? Can Israel afford to piss off the middle east and the radicals more than they already have?

[teddy51]

2. The threats just keep coming and it must very upsetting for all Iranians. n/t

[fascisthunter]

3. US Officials: sick in the head

[jwirr]

4. If that happens I think we will be going it alone again. EU does not have money for a long drawn out

war. We don't either but that does not seem to matter to the MIC.

[woo me with science]

5. Of course they do. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. Panetta & Pentagon admits their "bunker buster" bombs cannot penetrate Iran's underground facilities

Haaretz: The futility of attacking Iran By Reuven Pedatzur
Published 03:42 09.02.12

Senior American defense officials told The Wall Street Journal that even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum. This is where the problem lies. Some of the nuclear facilities in Iran, especially those that are critical for the continuation of its nuclear program activities, are located deep below the surface and protected by reinforced concrete fortifications. This makes the task of destroying them almost completely impossible. In Israel, those involved have ignored the limitations of these bombs that are supposed to annihilate the nuclear sites; but ignoring this will not solve the operational problem that those planning the attack will have to deal with.

If Israeli Air Force planes succeed in reaching the targets and in dropping bombs on them with great accuracy, but they are nevertheless not destroyed, this would pose questions about the justification of a military operation. If those critical sites are not annihilated, the Iranian nuclear program will be postponed only for a relatively short period.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840


.

[davidthegnome]

8. So, basically..

Taking out their nuclear facilities would require a ground invasion or some kind of tactical nuclear strike (which strikes me as an insanely bad idea). I'm not sure what all the options are in regards to weaponry, but if the bunker busters can't take them out, I don't think we have bombs (aside from nuclear) that can. Still, I don't think that's going to be enough to prevent Israel from moving, or, unfortunately, our own military getting involved.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Well yes only the use of nuclear weapons or a land invasion and permanent military occupation

can actually eliminate the nuclear threat as such. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that non-nuclear bunker buster bombs are capable of doing that. This fact is not even debatable among serious military experts including the Pentagon's. Of course there is no actual direct evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program - but that is beside the point.

[davidthegnome]

10. All I've seen is a rather vague

statement from the IAEA. I think most of us would strongly prefer to avoid a conflict with Iran, but I don't think we'll be able to if Israel decides to declare war. I'd vote against it, but my vote wouldn't count, I'm not a politician. I think Obama is being cautious, but ultimately I think he'd side with Israel and we'd be knee deep in shit again. I imagine our republican congress loves the idea of blowing up Iranians.

[lunatica]

7. The media lives for it's war drums

It loves the cool graphics and the patriotic fervor and the playing of the dramatic music!