Going nu-cle-ar depends on what going nuclear mean: fuel rods being loaded into the reactor near Bushehr and activating it; or Iran's research and development program infrastructure sites? A caveat: Russia has indicated this particular site (possibly associated infrastructure) is now under their protection.

The buzz now is if Saudi King Abdullah, peace be upon him, changed his mind to go ahead on uranium enrichment after Obama supposedly talked him out of it in June, since at that time it was thought the Russians wouldn't be loading fuel rods until late September - they moved the time table-up (clever, eh or was the U.S. in on it, and snookered Israel?).

Anyway, time passes, the wind blows, and the birds sing. The birds on the street are singing that the janitor of the two holy sites, King Abdullah, wasn’t satisfied with the Obama administration's efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in the aforementioned meeting.

So, if this is true, it may mean though the U.S. has contingency plans, and has been practicing, there isn't any immediate steps to implement them, and doubtful that Israel will either, because again there is some buza that Obama promised Netanyahu that if Israel wouldn't attack, the U.S. would not only be put Israel under America's nuclear umbrella, but some interesting military hardware may be forthcoming, along with some Going nu-cle-ar depends on what going nuclear means - fuel rods being loaded into the reactor near Bushehr? Or Iran's research and development program infrastructure sites?

The buzz now is if Saudi King Abdullah, peace be upon him, changed his mind to go ahead on uranium enrichment after Obama supposedly talked him out of it in June. The word on the street is the janitor of the two holy sites wasn’t satisfied with Obama administration's efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

If this is true, it may mean though the U.S. has contingency plans, and has been practicing, there isn't any immediate steps to implement them and doubtful that Israel will either, because again there is some buzz, that Obama promised Netanyahu that if Israel wouldn't attack, the U.S. would not only be put Israel under America's nuclear umbrella, but some interesting military hardware may be forthcoming, along with some advanced technology nuclear energy production.

Inshallah, if Allah wishes -

Israel will not allow the Iranians to go nuclear -- at least, not while a Holocaust denier who has made pointed threats against the Jewish state remains in power.

For the last time, Ahmadinejad doesn't control that type of stuff, so it doesn't matter what he says. The military and foreign policy is controlled by Khamenei and his ilk.

Mansoor may be dead right about the consequences of the realization of an Iranian offensive nuclear capability. On the other hand like all the rest of the titles and degrees that inhabit the offices of think tanks and universities he also may be just bloviating. The ‘in the know’ types in the past decade have not have very sterling track records for their prognostications much like most ‘expert’ investment professionals for the past ten years.

Mansoor and others are making the same assumption about Iran that they made about the Soviet Union in that it is governed by unpredictable wild-eyed ideologues that cannot be trusted to make rational decisions. In essence Mansoor and others of his ilk think that nuclear deterrence either from Israel or the United States or both is no deterrence at all to a state like Iran. Mansoor must presume that Tehran possess a suicidal impulse just like those crazy Russians and Chinese did back in the 50’s and 60’s.

No disrespect to Mansoor I am sure his lectures are riveting but in my humble view if he thinks his powers of forecasting are so acute then he is in the wrong business at the wrong address. He should ditch Ohio State and take up a spot at Goldman Sach’s who would pay him real money for his insights.

Bombing Iran may lead to an end of the American empire. Everyone overlooks the fact that Iran has a large army. We have troops scattered in dozens of camps in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We could have another "Yalu River" event like during the Korean war, with a million Iranian foot soldiers walking across the borders. They could cut our supply lines easily, especially since our Muslim contract trucking companies are likely to stop work. After a couple weeks of no food, water, or ammo, our lightly armed troops will be lucky to escape. Imagine seeing thousands of American POWs on Arab TV.

This is why we will not bomb Iran, unless our Generals are so full of bull that they'd foolishly okay an attack. Then there is the straight of Hormuz. Its not only anti-ship systems, but Iran can close the strait with artillery guns. They have a fortified island in the middle, which would require a bloody division size amphibious assault to seize.

Sure, much of Iranian anti-Israeli noise is just that, propaganda that fires up the base and misdirects attention from the real problems the country faces. But that does not mean that their careful years-long stategy to de-legitimize the Holocaust and the Israeli nation does not constitute a real threat that cannot be ignored. These are dangerous people.

The most serious threat of the growing Iranian nuclear capability is proliferation of a wmd to a group such as Hezbollah. They don't need a missile to be dangerous, and could even claim plausible deniability if a terrorist group used something like a small dirty device. This is the threat Israel fears, far more than some idea of Iranian missiles flying across the desert. The IAF can respond to that threat. A localized attack from a bomb in an Israeli city is much more difficult to deter.

There is no way to know where Iran's program really is, or where it will be in a year. Goldberg's spring 2011 scenario was well referenced, but at the same time it was guesswork at best. Mansoor's description of the conflict that would ensue from an Israeli strike seems accurate. As Admiral Mullen has said, the US Navy can effectively respond to Iranian military action in the Gulf. But that would be a nasty fight, and the effect on the world economy could be crippling in the short term.

The WaPo made the point today that one reason Bibi has thrown himself in to negotiations with the Palestinians is to be seen more as a peacemaker and reduce the negative tension between Israel and the US... in case he needs to make that difficult phone call to tell the president that the planes are in the air.

What struck me in the Goldberg article was how many Israeli decision-makers had the iconic photo of IAF F-15s soaring over Auschwitz. These guys have a sense of the threat that we in the US do not. I suspect they are closer to acting than not acting.

As an aside, while I'm glad Tom is back I also am already a bit worn out by the rhetoric around here. Why attack Mansoor - a guy who is a long way from some 'think tank bloviator?'

Some points to underscore regarding the Bushehr reactor. The Russians are going to be supplying the fuel for the reactor and taking the spent fuel back after it has been used - at least for the next decade. There will be IAEA safeguards so that the fuel cannot be removed without detection. Moreover, despite concerns that Iran could obtain plutonium from the spent fuel, there are technical reasons that make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Iran to obtain Pu, even if they did get the spent fuel. Further, the Iranians would have a problem with storage of the spent fuel. They do not have the capability to do so - one reason why they agreed to have the Russians take the fuel back. The Bushehr reactor is not pertinent to the Iranian enrichment program and really is a red herring regarding Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities. There are concerns with Bushehr in the safety area, which have been largely ignored in the media. The reactor is the product of an on-and-off construction program,which alone raises questions. Iran's failure to fully be in synch with the IAEA is another. The reactor could likely be a problem, but not for the reasons cited in the media.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz comes up frequently during this debate. However, people need to really think about it. First, Iran would kill itself because 68% of their total exports. By closing the Strait, they will be pushing their economy to the limits as they do not have their Caspian ports developed. Second, will Iran really be able to fully stop oil. Demand will force oil companies to keep pushing through the Strait. Plus, I do not think that Iran will be able to destroy and disable 10+ ships; lots of different ships traverse the Strait daily. Third, only 3 of the US's top oil suppliers are located in the Middle East. When I combine these ideas, I do not think that closing the Strait will be viable for Iran.

First, you attack 'expert' investment professionals. Then, you seem to imply that their prognosticating ability is superior to....well, everyone else. But that's a side issue.

I have problems with ideas put out by people in the media, at think tanks and at universities, too (as well as investment banks - don't get me started at the acronym BRIC). But I think this is largely a function of the fact that they put forth ideas with which to have problems, not that their ideas are more or less wrong than those of others (and they indeed might well be better or more accurate).

I'd also point out that investment banks hire firms like Eurasia Group, Oxford Analytica, and Economist Intelligence Unit to do precisely what Professor/Dr. Mansoor just did (for free).

But lest I digress too much, in sum, why the personal attack on Professor/Dr. Mansoor? At the risk of sounding patronizing or sycophantic, yours has been one of the more reasonable on this blog - hence my confusion.

This will be a bit off-topic: My father's an MBA and spent considerable time in the financial world; his viewpoint mirrors yours considerably. And as regards your second sentence, I probably had the fanciest dinner of my life when my next door neighbor from college, who at the time worked for GSAM and was dating a former investment banker-turned culinary student, decided to show me SoHo's (or was it Tribeca's?) finest. With respect to your third and fourth sentences, it's all good, as they say.

Respectfully,
Anon_Anon

1) the Allies have an overcapacity in rapidly defeating the Iranian forces in a full scale confrontation.
2) Nobody has seriously proposed an invasion and occupation of Iran. A fatal blow to Iranian forces would probably cause a regime change.
3) As already pointed out the closing of the Hormuz strait would cripple Iran too. Besides it's far more difficult to achieve militarily than "thought" in the original article. At worse it could be very temporarily. The Allies subs, mine sweepers, air forces etc would rapidly defeat any Iranian attempt. The strait isn't a narrow canal.
4) The situation of the US troops in Iraq isn't a potential "Dien Bien Phu", there are several ways of repositioning or evacuating the troops to other sectors in front of a major offensive, since the US has total air superiority. Besides the poster above who as usual sniped at the French on this topic, doesn't obviously know that any Army can lose a battle under certain circumstances, bad weather prohibiting air support is one of them. The brilliant US "victories" in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia or even Iraq are only examples of a serie of lost battles or blatant ineptitude. Which is of course easily forgotten by some.
5) the "Korean scenario" isn't applicable in this case since Iran doesn't have a China to back it up. It would be suicidal for the Iranis. Saddam had too a "million army", they held one month, despite already occupying the territory. Only the Pasdaran can be dangerous, the rest is of poor quality and probably not ready to die for Khameini.
6) the Hezbollah/Hamas/terrorism scenarios are more realistic, but even if serious, not threatening Western vital interests. And Israel is big enough to take care of itself..

Finally if the Free World cannot undertake ANY military operations if necessary, IN FEAR OF RETALIATION, we'd better surrender right away and instore shariah. At least we will skip the invasion.

Is it me or is there a strange hypocrisy to Netanyahu not condemning the calls from Ovadia Yosef for a plague (read God-made Genocide) on the Palestinians. Does he not think that this hurts his cause as he travels the world decrying similar comments from Iran. It is especially caustic because Israel has the ability (although I would strongly argue not the desire) to wipe out the Palestinians without being destroyed in the process. Even if were Iran to go nuclear, the same could not be said for them attempting to destroy the Jewish state. For my full analysis, go to http://bifocalpoint.blogspot.com/2010/08/its-first-netanyahu-does-not-condemn.html

Oh noes Iran will respond to an attack on its own country11!!!

No shit sherlock.

Peter Mansoor is simply parroting the leftist script that has been responded to numerous times, especially on Foreign Policy journal.

Israel has been noble enough to regulate its security to the international community in hopes of diarming Iran diplomatic.

We have failed. the IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei was an Islamist sock-puppet who failed to honor his mandate and instead spent most of his tenure bitching about Israel. Bush wouldn't green light an attack and even cooked a phony NIE report that said Iran suspended its nuclear program (big FAT LIE).

Iran will have a bomb with 1 year, maybe less.

Don't forget - Israel bombed Syria and Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and while the Arab's promised a response they didn't do shit.

Hamas is mostly contained and Israel could easily demolish the organization in a Gaza War-styled operation.

Hezbollah is more tricky, but again Israel could easily level South Lebanon.

The argument that we shouldn't disarm Iran because it might respond is fear-mongering and scare-tactics.

Having studied this, there are key points overlooked.

1) The strait of Hormuz seems very wide, over 20 miles, but most of it is shallow. There are only two deep ship lanes.

2) Bombing Iran would also involve destroying its ports along with an embargo. In such a case, Iran has nothing to lose by trying to shut the strait.

3) Just the threat of Iranian actions is enough to keep commercial shippers from sailing through the strait. Their insurance companies will cancel coverage if they do, and crewmen will refuse to enter a combat zone, even if nothing has been attacked.

4) The Pakis, Taliban, and Iraqi insurgents will use the event to take actions, especially since airpower will be tied up.

5) If the Turks or any Arab nation object, they may shut down our airfields.

6) We don't have an "army" in Iraq like we used against Saddam. We just have five light brigades trained and equipped for constable duties. If they get into trouble, expect our Iraqi "allies" to help finish them off.

7) Our supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan are far from the ocean and very vulnerable. In addition, we rely on Muslim companies and drivers to deliver supplies. They will not drive during a "war" even if the danger is low, and may refuse to drive out of principle. And our airlift could transport maybe only 10% of what they need.

8)Don't expect the Iraqis to cheer, since they were bombed too. We could see thousands of Iraqis take to the streets in protest and block traffic as we bomb their Shiite brothers. Sistani would be pissed, and say something to incite them. Expect Sadr to reappear, in force!

9) Iranian Generals have often said they have plans to counterattack, and they've had years to plan and recon our bases. Recall the occasional story of a few Iranian arms found in Iraq. A war would allow tons to flow across, including shoulder fired SAMs.

This is why bombing Iran would be madness. There is no hard proof that Iran has a nuke bomb, or is even making one. Meanwhile, Pakistan, India and Israel have hundreds of nukes, and even test them. So the world would never support an attack. Even Bush was not stupid enough to order a strike.

Yet it may happen. This is how empires end -- hubris. I'm sure more comments by readers will demonstrate this.

Summer is not quite over. There's still time to add a book to your reading lists. I suggest a re-read of Nevil Shute's "On the Beach".

What the hell is all this talk of nukes over Tehran? Haven't we had enough of this "Adventures in Islam Hornet Nests"?

I would have to imagine that Iran's response depends critically on how the US reacted to any Israeli strike while it occurs and diplomatically afterward. All of the discussion seems to presume that the US will have aided and abetted any Israeli strike and thwarted any diplomatic response against Israel. While that scenario is likely, one would need to assess that it is not certain.

How would Iran react if the US attempted to stop the Israeli strike and did not participate with attacks of its own against Iranian littoral targets? Would the Iranians react so aggressively if the US were to communicate with the Iranians informing them of the Israeli attack vectors where possible? It might be hell on the Israelis, but so what? Are they going to attack US assets in the Middle East?

At the very least such a scenario could help tamp down the meltdown we'd be facing in the Middle East otherwise. Not vetoing any resolutions against the Israelis in the UN would likely help too. How else should we respond to the reckless actions of an ally?

Please understand this global warming and all country contributed this mission..

ExtaMax Male Enhancement

see:

this wikipedia article ... or this book.

URLs don't work in comments, so....

Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Book: 7 deadly scenarios

http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Scenarios-Military-Futurist-Explores/dp/0553805398/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283588866&sr=1-1