The CBC published "Why Canada severed relations with Iran."   http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/s...

In an interview Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Baird emphasized his "concern was for the safety of the men and women working at the Canadian mission," but when asked by host Evan Solomon whether there was "something specific" he conceded there was "not a direct threat" or an increased security risk.

"The mission in Tehran is not one of the safest we have," Baird also told Solomon. "It faces a busy road and it could be overrun pretty quickly."

 

Most of the credible sources all seem to say that all attacking Iran will do is make the much despised mullahs into heros - and even the Israelis says that the most successful attack would only delay Iran getting a nuke by two years.  

 

 

A two-year delay would be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Especially if it buys enough time to build an unavoidable consensus that something more dedicated needs to be done.

 

I remember when the talking heads made a great deal about how 'the Arab street' would rise up if something was done about Afghanistan and Iraq, too, but it never happened. A two-year delay (or more) of Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for a short-term morale boost to the theocracy, is a relatively small price to pay.

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to disagree for many reasons.   First - one of the assumptions being made by those clamoring for military action against Iran is that Iran will be ready to cease hostilities when its attacker(s) decide they want to stop.   The JCS considers this to be a poor assumption (to be generous).  Second - the damage to the global economy (which is already having its problems) could/would be staggering, considering that Iran could effectively close the Straits of Hormuz (through mining, missiles, and torpedos).    Third, there were serious problems in the results of several war games that were held assuming Iran as the opponent - and the USA took a serious bath (for example:  losing a carrier in the process) causing the games to be stopped.   Fourth, the Iranian people are quite enamored with the USA (and west in general) and detest their mullahs - and it is only a matter of time before they are taken out the same way Mubarak, Gaddaffi, and probably soon Assad will be removed.  An attack will kill that off very quickly.  And, if anyone attacks them - they will if determined get a weapon anyway within two years (time flies when you're having fun!).

 

I find myself agreeing with the JCS on this one. 

 

And no one speaks about Israel's nuclear weapon stockpile and its means to deliver it.  Hence - it isn't like Israel is defenseless.  Iran cannot directly attack Israel with nukes (or anything else) because that will cause Iran to turn into a sea of glass.  Nor can they give nukes away for a third party to use:  radioactive isotopes are easily traceable to their point of origin which would point back to Iran - again ensuring their total destruction.  Iran could get a weapon, have their economy totally crushed, and be left unable to use it - making it a total loss.

 

cheers 

 

 

 

You are engaging in wishful thinking. 2 years is the BEST CASE. Most likely is less than 6 months. Given the trade-off is that you probably just made the regime totally secure this seems a bad bargain.

The pentagon did not publish the results of their wargames before the invasion to avoid tipping their hand to the strategies and capabilities they had developed, and the press didn’t care much afterwards. The horrendous predictions were to prepare the public for the worst, just in case.

 

A wargaming group called SPI produced a simplified game for the invasion before Desert Storm that predicted the ‘hail marry’ play as optimal strategy in play testing, but was agreeable to suppressing that information until after the invasion.

 

But to assume that the same thing will happen again is pure hubris.

Six months or two years (some even say five or higher), it's still six months/two/five years longer than you'd otherwise have. Time in which the regime is going to be madly scuttling about, making any previous attempts at hiding the stuff non-existent for at least a short while. Therefore, an Israeli strike's just bought extra time and potentially even valuable intelligence for a later, more US-led effort.

 

Either of which are infinitely more preferable than sitting around, doing nothing and simply allowing the supposedly uncrossable red line to be, well... Crossed.

 

still six months/two/five years longer than you'd otherwise have. Time in which the regime is going to be madly scuttling about, making any previous attempts at hiding the stuff non-existent for at least a short while. Therefore, an Israeli strike's just bought extra time and potentially even valuable intelligence for a later, more US-led effort.

 

Either of which are infinitely more preferable than sitting around, doing nothing and simply allowing the supposedly uncrossable red line to be, well... Crossed.

 

 

I remain on the side of the JCS - they're at a far higher pay grade, and its their business to know this stuff inside and out.  The notion of the pre-emptive strike turned out to be a complete disaster - and the expense was extraordinary.  The previous administration left this nations armed forces at their lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam:  our equipment, forces, and the global economy cannot afford another beating like it took before.

  

 

I don't understand why you consider the notion of pre-emptive strikes to be " a complete disaster".  Israel undertook one against Iraq's nuclear venture and another, much more recently, against Syria's. They were complete successes. This one's a lot less centralised, which makes it a lot more complicated, but that's all the more reason for the US to be need to be involved, not less.

 

If you're fearful of economic catastrophe, then I honestly fail to see how you imagine it's going to remain healthy and stable when the planet's foremost sponsor of terrorist groups (including training, weapons/equipment provision and accommodation) gains access to nuclear weapons. Nor do I see you offering a viable alternative solution - the sanctions are too little, too late and should have been aggressively pursued years ago.