Breakdown of Diplomacy between Canada and Iran

[Trieste]

I've been reading about this for the past hour or two, trying to get a sense of what's going on between Canada and Iran. I admit that I still feel somewhat in the dark about what's going on between the two. Both nations seem very heavily angry at one another.

It seems like some news agencies are confusing current rhetoric with old rhetoric.

Canada’s action did not prompt an immediate reaction from Tehran, but Iran had threatened “reciprocal action” in May, when Canada closed the visa section in its Iranian embassy, one used by thousands of Iranians with ties to Canada.

Ramin Mehmanparast, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, described the move as “hostile behavior [by] the current racist government in Canada” that was influenced by the British and Israeli governments.

This Daily Kos article lists several things that are in direct contradiction with the articles above, so I'm hesitant to call it anything except for flat out wrong.

Baird said Canada was officially designating Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and gave a long list of reasons for Canada's decision, including Tehran's support for Syria's embattled President Bashar al-Assad in that country's civil war.

"The Iranian regime is providing increasing military assistance to the Assad regime; it refuses to comply with U.N. resolutions pertaining to its nuclear program; it routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide," Baird said in a statement. "It is among the world's worst violators of human rights; and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups."

I know we have several Canadians on the board, so I'm wondering if some insight might be provided. I mean, none of the listed reasons are particularly news, so I find myself wondering why now? How likely is it that Canada got wind of an impending US/Isreali attack on Iran and is trying to get the hell out of dodge? Is there something else the national news isn't covering? Is it a reaction to this summer's activities supposedly aimed at recruiting Iranian ex-pats in Canada in order to extend its reach despite diplomatic restrictions?

The Al Jazeera article about it seems to have the best breadth of the issue, but I still feel like there are quite a few details missing.

[Moraline]

I'm Canadian.

Globe and Mail is one of our largest media outlets in Canada. This is what they have to say about it.
~ Source: Globe and Mail

The possibility of an Israeli or U.S. military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities raised concerns that Canadian diplomats could be targeted for reprisals after an attack because of Ottawa’s staunch support of Israel and tough stand on Iran. Britain closed its embassy after it was stormed last November by demonstrators whose actions the Iranian regime was believed to have sanctioned.

The government also worried the diplomats could be at risk as Ottawa ratchets up measures against Tehran – including declaring it a “state sponsor of terrorism” on Friday under a new law designed to help victims of terrorists.

...

The sources indicated no particular incident triggered concerns for the safety of Canadian diplomats, just a variety of factors that made Ottawa decide it no longer wanted to bear the risk.

The hot rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program raises the possibility of an Israeli strike in the near future, one source said, leading to real concerns that diplomats from Canada, a vocal supporter of Israel, could face reprisals. There was no suggestion Ottawa received warning of an attack, but the sources indicated the government wanted Canadian diplomats out before any strike.

In addition, there were concerns that new pressure tactics Ottawa has employed against Iran could increase the risk to Canadian diplomats.

A law passed on March 13, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, calls for the government to lift the immunity of countries deemed to be state sponsors of terrorism, so that in theory, Canadian victims of terrorist attacks could sue those countries for damages. The law required that the initial list of countries that Canada deems sponsors of terrorism be issued within six months – by next Thursday.

We are really just following in the footsteps of our big brothers. The tension is to high and it's much easier to get people out now then get caught in the middle of something. I'm sure that there was other reasons. Maybe CSIS (Canada's version of the CIA) might have caught wind of something. That won't be said in the media for weeks if it's released at all.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think that it is a prudent move.. given the storming of England's embassy last year. I think the opinion in a LOT of western diplomatic circles is that the Nuke Program will not be stopped by sanctions or diplomacy and this time around the Canadian Embassy would be on the list if things go south again.

The Iranians have repeatedly proven that they will not aid, assist or protect diplomatic staff in Tehran. In that situation, I think the leadership in Canada made the right move. Sooner or later.. SOMEONE is going to do something and there will be blood on the streets. It could be a domestic issue (considering the situation in Syria.. I'm surprised that simliar dissent hasn't arisen in Iran already.) or a diplomatic or even military action. The local governments have been caught (thanks to Wikileaks) in being in the sinful (according to Tehran) attitude of trusting the west more than the Iranians. If they get a nuke.. you can BET it will be a club for the Gulf states.

Additionally.. before I forget again.. the Canadians risked a lot in the past in Iran.. during and after the hostage crisis and all the way to date. If their leaders say 'enough' I expect that it's because they know or got a feel on the wind that we as public individuals don't have yet. So.. thanks for covering what you could in the day..and I'm glad your folks will be coming back safe.

[gaggedLouise]

It could be that the Canadians have just been waiting for a time to get out before it gets even more unsafe, it could be that they have been tipped off that something is coming soon. It *is* quite likely that Israel will make a strike (or a series of strikes, perhaps together with the US) soon, and unlikely that it will achieve its objective in full. Getting Saddam's reactor back in 1980 was a much easier shot for the Israelis, only one location and not buried under deep sheets of rock.

Be prepared for something happening within weeks of the U.S. election, even before it (on one hand the Israeli cabinet no doubt prefer Romney and wouldn't want to create a situation where the U.S. response is likely to make many people rally around Obama, on the other hand they may just not feel they can wait many weeks longer...)

[Trieste]

I would sincerely be shocked to see any US military action before the election in November. Considering even RNC speeches were asking questions like "Why don't you bring our troops home [where they belong] tomorrow?", getting involved in another war right now would be (I think) so wildly unpopular as to be political suicide.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, any military act between now and November will be strictly reactive.

[gaggedLouise]

I would sincerely be shocked to see any US military action before the election in November. Considering even RNC speeches were asking questions like "Why don't you bring our troops home [where they belong] tomorrow?", getting involved in another war right now would be (I think) so wildly unpopular as to be political suicide.

I sort of agree, it's easy to sense even from a distance how weary of interventions in the Middle East America is - but I still wouldn't rule out something happening before November. If there is an Israeli strike or Syria really implodes in a bad way, the White House will simply have its back against the wall: they may feel they *have* to act - it's a given that Iran will act, and angrily. Not to mention the risk of terrorists giving their own response. Even if Washington had some advance knowledge of what was in store. They must be sitting with some plans on the lines of "what do we do if the Israelis make a number of air strikes at Irani nuclear installations?"

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think Israel is going to use a tactical nuke to shut down Iran's program for good.  It's the only way they can destroy the underground facility.  This will be blessed (if reluctantly) by the United States, and blessed (if very privately and even more reluctantly) by Russia.

The bottom line here is that Iran is getting "too big for its britches."  Russia and China are supportive of any country that opposes America--if Hitler came back from the grave, Moscow and Beijing would welcome him with open arms...at least until he began to amass a war machine big enough to threaten them.   Russia and China don't mind an Iran big enough to cause trouble for America and the rest of the world.

But a nuclear-armed Iran?  That's a different story.  That would make Iran--at least in one respect--a peer of Russia and China.  And that's not something Russia and China want.  Especially when that nation's leaders make clear their loyalty is to Islam first.  Both Russia and China have problems with militant Islam.  So they've got to be asking themselves if the same venom Iran has toward Jews could someday be projected at Russians and Chinese--I mean, none of them bow to Mecca five times a day, so all are infidels and Iran's brand of Islam says all infidels and their women are fair game for jihad.

Add to this the lesson Russia is learning in Syria: sometimes psychotic despots are more trouble than they're worth, even if they do hate America.  Russia has taken quite a beating, in terms of regional pr, by going all-in on Assad.  And after all that, Assad is still likely to fall, and whoever replaces him is going to remember Russia's support for their oppressors, and probably cancel Russia's lease on the naval base there...or at least demand a lot more in return for the privilege.

So I think what is going to happen is Israel (possibly with American aid) is going to drop a tactical nuke on Iran's facilities.  When the radioactivity gets detected, the Israeli response will be a rolling of the eyes and something along the lines of "well, of course there's radioactivity, they had tons of highly enriched uranium there, just like we've been saying all along, and of course it's going to leave a mark."  The corporate media here will hush up Israel's use of the nuclear option.  Russia and China will protest.  Privately, Russia will tell America that its willingness to not raise a big stink about the use of nukes should in no way, shape or form be construed as consent for America to effect "regime change" in Iran or invade, and that this is a one-time, not-to-be-repeated loophole in policy re the use of atomics.  And America will nod and say we get it.  And that will pretty much be that.

Iran, for its part, will realize it has reached the end of its leash.  Its leaders will engage in typical Islamic fulminations at the mouth about Jews and infidels and evil-doers...while privately negotiating a compromise that will allow it to save a little face while ceasing its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

[Callie Del Noire]

It can be summed like this. Iran supports radical Islamic movements. It's all well and good when they are pointed at America and Western Europe, the problem is.. that Iran is now looking to the Russian and Chinese provinces and client states.. and they just realized that Iran is quite possibly stupid enough to try something with them. And that both countries are within any potential Iranian 'missile' envelope.

Like Oldschool said that is a whole diffrent thing than making them pests for the west.

[Trieste]

So... I guess what I'm wondering is what it looks like from a less Americentric point of view. I've been trying to seek out the POV of the Iranian populace on this, too, but I don't know much where to look. (At least, that's in English.)

Looking through Twitter, it seems like many Iranian Canadians are pretty peeved. Supportive of both Canada and Iran, and worried about their families. I can't say I blame them.

[gaggedLouise]

(---)So I think what is going to happen is Israel (possibly with American aid) is going to drop a tactical nuke on Iran's facilities.  When the radioactivity gets detected, the Israeli response will be a rolling of the eyes and something along the lines of "well, of course there's radioactivity, they had tons of highly enriched uranium there, just like we've been saying all along, and of course it's going to leave a mark."  The corporate media here will hush up Israel's use of the nuclear option.  Russia and China will protest.  Privately, Russia will tell America that its willingness to not raise a big stink about the use of nukes should in no way, shape or form be construed as consent for America to effect "regime change" in Iran or invade, and that this is a one-time, not-to-be-repeated loophole in policy re the use of atomics.  And America will nod and say we get it.  And that will pretty much be that.

Iran, for its part, will realize it has reached the end of its leash.  Its leaders will engage in typical Islamic fulminations at the mouth about Jews and infidels and evil-doers...while privately negotiating a compromise that will allow it to save a little face while ceasing its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

They'd have to use several different tactical nuclear bombs/missiles to achieve that - it's something like a dozen locations. It would be the biggest use of nukes ever, by far outdoing the bombs on Japan both in number and in the force of each bomb. Much as I can see how strongly many U.S. (and European) media outlets endorse Israel I don't think it would be possible to get an acceptably smooth cover up of that it was actually a nuclear attack, and not done with super-heavy conventional "bunker bombs".

So it would mean both an admission of Israel that they do have a large stockpile of nukes - something they have never wanted to confirm, though it's an accepted fact in the eyes of most observers - and a de facto declaration of war on Iran. The U.S: and perhaps Britain would simply have to stick by Tel Aviv and cover them, both militarily and diplomatically. The UN would be paralyzed, but it already is, and not just here. If the U:S. got involved in a war against Iran, use of U.S. (and Chinese?) nukes could not be put off the table. At the same time the conflict in Syria would be lunging towards further meltdown, with possible uncontrolled spread of chemical weapons and heavy munitions to other countries in the yard, including Iran...

Not good, guys, but none of it looks altogether unlikely - except I don't think major news outlets with any kind of spine would really deny that Israel had been using nuclear weapons if they did so.

[Moraline]

Iranians in Canada having been having a rough go of it all around.

Several months back the CIBC (a very large bank) voluntarily locked every account held by an Iranian. Many of them had dual Canadian citizenship, or were students here.

I have to say though, that I know a number of people from the middle east that live around here are all cheering any decision to press for change in Iran. War against Iran is a frightening idea for them but they definitely want change. They just don't want to see the Middle East Explode into war. 

Keep in mind. Most middle East people living here have fled the middle east for strong reasons. As a side note: most of the middle eastern people that I know are Christians and don't follow the Muslim faith.

Iran is not Iraq. They are a significantly more dangerous country with a much larger and better trained professional military.


As for the comment earlier about dropping a tactical nuke. That's a very scary precedent to set. I hope no one goes that far.

[gaggedLouise]

Iranians in Canada having been having a rough go of it all around.

Several months back the CIBC (a very large bank) voluntarily locked every account held by an Iranian. Many of them had dual Canadian citizenship, or were students here.

I have to say though, that I know a number of people from the middle east that live around here are all cheering any decision to press for change in Iran. War against Iran is a frightening idea for them but they definitely want change. They just don't want to see the Middle East Explode into war. 

Keep in mind. Most middle East people living here have fled the middle east for strong reasons. As a side note: most of the middle eastern people that I know are Christians and don't follow the Muslim faith.

Iran is not Iraq. They are a significantly more dangerous country with a much larger and better trained professional military.


As for the comment earlier about dropping a tactical nuke. That's a very scary precedent to set. I hope no one goes that far.

I can see why they would respond like that. Remember seeing interviews with Iraqi refugee families living here (in Sweden, which has taken on a large number ever since '90) on the news back in 2003: they were relieved that Saddam had been pushed down but they very much would have wanted it to be the work of the Iraqi people. Some of them - ordinary people, not jihadists -  were very much in two minds about how the U.S and UK had offered them their liberation.


***Digression*** The bottom line with the price of war is that these days, big wars are never fully paid as to the costs of mounting the guns and airplanes and tanks, sending the troops into battle and making them fight, supporting them on the front and after. Well, it's paid in blood, in lost lives, but not fully in the huge money it costs to drive the war - or the destruction, loss and rebuilding. It's kind of a pattern. The first world war broke the back of the gold standard and prices were just yanked up by the needs of the war going on: after the war they tried to sort things out by steep war damages but most of those never got near fully paid, and many of those who should have had debt letters to wave in 1919 were dead anyway, or their firms had disappeared.

During WW2 prices were imposed by the state and everyone had to obey, after the war nobody bothered that much about war damages paid by the enemy, it was just obvious that the ground level of the economy had to be rebuilt - farms, streets, railways, cities. (Well, the Soviet Union forced heavy damages on Germany and so on, but it was never a market economy).  These days, much of the time if you're selling a major weapons program to another country or preparing for war, you'll be getting part of the payment in long-term state credits, mutual promises to buy each other's stuff to the cost of billions by the parties in the transactions - and loans. After the war, part of those loans have been eaten up by the inflation and perhaps some of those who lent out the money are M.I.A. or dead, so the repayments get partly dropped.  The debts run up have been kind of annihilated.

[OldSchoolGamer]

They'd have to use several different tactical nuclear bombs/missiles to achieve that - it's something like a dozen locations. It would be the biggest use of nukes ever, by far outdoing the bombs on Japan both in number and in the force of each bomb. Much as I can see how strongly many U.S. (and European) media outlets endorse Israel I don't think it would be possible to get an acceptably smooth cover up of that it was actually a nuclear attack, and not done with super-heavy conventional "bunker bombs".

I could be wrong, but as I recall most of the sites are not heavily fortified.  There are one or two that would require something with a bit more oomph than a conventional bomb to ensure they were out of commission.  The rest could be handled with conventional weapons.

So it would mean both an admission of Israel that they do have a large stockpile of nukes - something they have never wanted to confirm, though it's an accepted fact in the eyes of most observers - and a de facto declaration of war on Iran. The U.S: and perhaps Britain would simply have to stick by Tel Aviv and cover them, both militarily and diplomatically. The UN would be paralyzed, but it already is, and not just here. If the U:S. got involved in a war against Iran, use of U.S. (and Chinese?) nukes could not be put off the table. At the same time the conflict in Syria would be lunging towards further meltdown, with possible uncontrolled spread of chemical weapons and heavy munitions to other countries in the yard, including Iran...

I think the Israeli nuclear arsenal is already one of the world's worst-kept secrets.  If making its existence no longer "secret" is the price they have to pay to stop Iran, I suspect they'll pay it.

While the strike has the potential to escalate into an all-out war, I doubt it will do so.  I suspect that, after the strike is made, the message from Israel and America to Iran will be, "quit while you're still in one piece."  With Russia and China effectively being neutral regarding the issue, Iran would find itself facing a superpower alone if it chose to escalate.  Russia and China would send Iran a private message of their own, along the lines of, "we warned you about this, you didn't listen, you kept talking trash about blowing up Israel, so this is the outcome.  We'll support you if America and Israel try and up the ante and invade, but you had this one coming.  Deal with it, write it off, and move on...and don't try to build nukes again."

Not good, guys, but none of it looks altogether unlikely - except I don't think major news outlets with any kind of spine would really deny that Israel had been using nuclear weapons if they did so.

The best possibility would be for Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.  But failing that...well, Islam has been "cruisin' for a bruisin'" with the rest of the world for quite some time now.  Sometimes the best outcome for a bully is to have his nose bloodied.  If Iran got spanked, it would send a message to Muslims around the world that the patience of the developed world has limits.  We would likely see a dialing-down of Islam's antics around the world.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think the intangibles in this are how Russia and China are going to act. IF this continues for another year or two.. some of the militant Islamic movements in the more stable Russian client states (ones without militant action before the last few years) or something really adventuresome in the Chinese states (which aren't too well off compare with the western/pacific provinces) on the behalf of Iranian supported groups will push them to act.

Nothing like make a move on the Chinese's hold on a country to piss them off and make the giant stomp over. Remember right now the Iranians provide oil and buy arms from them.. if they are caught fomenting dissent and supplying arms to the enemies of the party..

Well I doubt we'll have to do anything. US or Israel.

Realistically I don't see the Iranians being so stupid in  short term.. they are going to do something like that.. it will be in the next decade or so. And given issues perculating in China..the Chinese might look for a reason to react.

[Zakharra]

 Israel wouldn't need to use nukes. It can use bunker busters and deep penetration bombs and missiles.  Using nuclear weapons on a first strike would be very -very- bad  for Israel. As a retaliation against nukes, is alright, but as a first strike? That would harm Israel's world image very badly.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Israel wouldn't need to use nukes. It can use bunker busters and deep penetration bombs and missiles.  Using nuclear weapons on a first strike would be very -very- bad  for Israel. As a retaliation against nukes, is alright, but as a first strike? That would harm Israel's world image very badly.

True.  But Israel also perceives a nuclear-armed Iran as a existential threat.  And while the Iranian leaders' rants and threats against Israel don't quite rise to the level of cassus belli, they give Israel at least some cover.  Israel can say, "they were about to develop nukes, and they basically threatened to destroy us on several occasions, so we pre-empted a mortal threat."  Statecraft isn't exactly an Islamic strength: if Iran's ayatollahs had kept their traps shut and not done their chest-beating, Israel would have a much tougher diplomatic road to tread vís-a-vís a pre-emptive strike.  But they're on record, on many occasions, stating explicitly they would destroy Israel if they had the chance, that killing Jews is a Muslim's divine obligation, Islam über alles, etc., etc., etc.  Lately they've tried to kinda sorta walk it back with statements about how nuclear weapons are against Islam, but the only reason they would have for trying to enrich uranium to the level they're trying to enrich it to is to build a nuclear bomb, so their latest statements lack credibility.

[Callie Del Noire]

Zakharra is right, they won't nuke them. For one.. there is no need to if a moab or deep penetration can do the job just as well. Israel has historically been very good at coming in with a measured response. The use of something like a MOAB would make just as big a stamenent and cost less.

They might have a nuke.. but why waste one when a bunker buster or such could do the trick.

[gaggedLouise]

I think the intangibles in this are how Russia and China are going to act. IF this continues for another year or two.. some of the militant Islamic movements in the more stable Russian client states (ones without militant action before the last few years) or something really adventuresome in the Chinese states (which aren't too well off compare with the western/pacific provinces) on the behalf of Iranian supported groups will push them to act.

Nothing like make a move on the Chinese's hold on a country to piss them off and make the giant stomp over. Remember right now the Iranians provide oil and buy arms from them.. if they are caught fomenting dissent and supplying arms to the enemies of the party..

Agree China is a big x factor here, but I think it's pretty much the other way around. Peking won't want anything that would begin to give the Americans a steady foothold or a "military ally" within a few hundred miles of Chinese Central Asia. From their point of view, any American move that looks like it aims to overthrow islamist Iran would look like a way to open an American back door on China.

The Chinese probably aren't worrying too much about islamists or native rebels in eastern China being supported by Iran. It's something they would count on being able to contain and push out, and they are not likely to see Iran as a military threat to themselves. I bet they would see possible Irani nuclear arms as directed almost exclusively to the west. But they DO want Iran as a source of oil and metals, so they are not going to sit in good spirits and accept any US move to gain control there. And to the Chinese, any US/Israeli attempt to knock out a key part of Iran's defences or to shake up the regime would be read as the first step towards making an ally or a satellite of Iran and then of putting up U.S. bases there.

Realistically I don't see the Iranians being so stupid in  short term.. they are going to do something like that.. it will be in the next decade or so. And given issues perculating in China..the Chinese might look for a reason to react.

I agree the Iranians, if they are actually preparing to produce nuclear weapons - it's likely, but I'm not totally convinced, and any country treats its nuclear research as a state secret, not just Iran - if they are getting ready to have nukes in a few years from now, they still would have a bit of a longer ignition thread than many people think they do. They're not gonna have many bombs even ten years from now, and they *know* that if they launched one against Israel they would be sure to get a much larger retaliation with nukes. It would be suicide without anything to win. Realistically they will never get a first-strike capacity on Israel; having ten bombs against an enemy who has hundreds and one of the best air forces anywhere doesn't give you any ability to push your dagger against the jugular of the other one and say "Now you will do exactly as I tell you, or I kill you".

[Callie Del Noire]

Agree China is a big x factor here, but I think it's pretty much the other way around. Peking won't want anything that would begin to give the Americans a steady foothold or a "military ally" within a few hundred miles of Chinese Central Asia. From their point of view, any American move that looks like it aims to overthrow islamist Iran would look like a way to open an American back door on China.

The Chinese probably aren't worrying too much about islamists or native rebels in eastern China being supported by Iran. It's something they would count on being able to contain and push out, and they are not likely to see Iran as a military threat to themselves. I bet they would see possible Irani nuclear arms as directed almost exclusively to the west. But they DO want Iran as a source of oil and metals, so they are not going to sit in good spirits and accept any US move to gain control there. And to the Chinese, any US/Israeli attempt to knock out a key part of Iran's defences or to shake up the regime would be read as the first step towards making an ally or a satellite of Iran and then of putting up U.S. bases there.


I agree the Iranians, if they are actually preparing to produce nuclear weapons - it's likely, but I'm not totally convinced, and any country treats its nuclear research as a state secret, not just Iran - if they are getting ready to have nukes in a few years from now, they still would have a bit of a longer ignition thread than many people think they do. They're not gonna have many bombs even ten years from now, and they *know* that if they launched one against Israel they would be sure to get a much larger retaliation with nukes. It would be suicide without anything to win. Realistically they will never get a first-strike capacity on Israel; having ten bombs against an enemy who has hundreds and one of the best air forces anywhere doesn't give you any ability to push your dagger against the jugular of the other one and say "Now you will do exactly as I tell you, or I kill you".

Thing is.. China also won't tolerate Iran (or anyone else) holding their future oil sellers hostage. And the first thing that will happen if Iran gets a nuke is they will hold the entire gulf region hostage. They will be the big boys on the block and that means.. they are going to push things. Iraq and whatever is left of Syria will get told what to do.. the Jordanians and Saudias will be in trouble too.. and want to bet that anyone in the 'banker states' won't be shaken down? (Dubai, the rest of the UAE and Bharain).

[gaggedLouise]

Thing is.. China also won't tolerate Iran (or anyone else) holding their future oil sellers hostage. And the first thing that will happen if Iran gets a nuke is they will hold the entire gulf region hostage. They will be the big boys on the block and that means.. they are going to push things. Iraq and whatever is left of Syria will get told what to do.. the Jordanians and Saudias will be in trouble too.. and want to bet that anyone in the 'banker states' won't be shaken down? (Dubai, the rest of the UAE and Bharain).

No, that's a course of action open to someone who has a few hundred well-tested nuclear charges, safe places to stock them without risk of having those storerooms blown up, and good control of the airspace in the region and avenues to send in their land army. Iran doesn't have any of this and they're not going to get it any time soon. Even if they are set on producing nukes, they're not going to be able to make hundreds of them within the next five or ten years. If Iran tried to bully every Gulf state plus Saudi Arabia around and say "Do as it pleases us or we'll nuke you" they would drive every one of those countries even deeper into the arms of the USA. And risk getting nuked themselves. They're not so dumb they would not see this coming if they picked that kind of strategy.

Also, if they blocked the Ormuzd strait they would block the main artery for their own exports - of oil and other stuff.

[Callie Del Noire]

No, that's a course of action open to someone who has a few hundred well-tested nuclear charges, safe places to stock them without risk of having those storerooms blown up, and good control of the airspace in the region and avenues to send in their land army. Iran doesn't have any of this and they're not going to get it any time soon. Even if they are set on producing nukes, they're not going to be able to make hundreds of them within the next five or ten years. If Iran tried to bully every Gulf state plus Saudi Arabia around and say "Do as it pleases us or we'll nuke you" they would drive every one of those countries even deeper into the arms of the USA. And risk getting nuked themselves. They're not so dumb they would not see this coming if they picked that kind of strategy.

I beg to differ. The ruling Regime has a large amount of hubris going, and the country has one advantage that can NOT be overcome easily. The straits of Hormuz. They can literally sink anything that crosses the strait that ain't a military vessel of the US. Hell on a clear day I could see both shores from the center of a deck of a carrier. (BARELY.. but still.)

Despite the Air Forces claims, without a carrier group in the Gulf.. a war wouldn't be as one sided as you think. A few well placed nukes.. and suddenly the US allies in the region will DEMAND them to leave.

[gaggedLouise]

The U.S. has airbases of its own in Saudi Arabia (established during the Gulf War and never evacuated since) and I think there's some air cover capacity from Iraq too - if they don't have it now, they wouldn't have much trouble getting permission there if Iran started acting like it owned the neighbourhood. Plus they have a decently reliable NATO ally in Turkey and NATO/US presence in Afghanistan. From any of those countries, the Americans could inflict a blistering response on Irani soil, airfields or oil fields, just as effectively as from an aircraft carrier. And the U.S. Air Force is superior to the Irani Air Force, both when it comes to planes, munitions and pilot training. Callie, I accept that the navy is a key part of the U.S. military, and that you're justifiably proud of being one of the guys, but I don't think the absence of a carrier group would leave the Gulf region completely exposed to extortion by the Iranis.

[Callie Del Noire]

The U.S. has airbases of its own in Saudi Arabia (established during the Gulf War and never evacuated since) and I think there's some air cover capacity from Iraq too - if they don't have it now, they wouldn't have much trouble getting permission there if Iran started acting like it owned the neighbourhood. Plus they have a decently reliable NATO ally in Turkey and NATO/US presence in Afghanistan. From any of those countries, the Americans could inflict a blistering response on Irani soil, airfields or oil fields, just as effectively as from an aircraft carrier. And the U.S. Air Force is superior to the Irani Air Force, both when it comes to planes, munitions and pilot training. Callie, I accept that the navy is a key part of the U.S. military, and that you're justifiably proud of being one of the guys, but I don't think the absence of a carrier group would leave the Gulf region completely exposed to extortion by the Iranis.

Those would be the same air bases that everyone in the GOP and Democratic parties wants to shut down and empty out?

And the ones with restrictions from the Saud royal family on where and when they can go out?

[gaggedLouise]

Those would be the same air bases that everyone in the GOP and Democratic parties wants to shut down and empty out?

And the ones with restrictions from the Saud royal family on where and when they can go out?

Would the counter bureaucrats really be the masters of the game if there was a clear and present danger of Iran cutting the Strait off and (perhaps, as seen by many in Washington) dropping a 1 MT atomic bomb on Jerusalem? Even the 1 in 10 possibility of that last one happening soon would put every discussion about dropping air bases and cutting down on navy ships in the Near East into reverse gear!  And do you seriously think the Saudi royals would be sitting on their hands and saying "no,. gotta wait a week before you can let anyone fly" if a nuke-powered Iran was trying to force every state in the region to dance according to their own road map??