Any or all of the SCO members (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) could enter the conflict in allegiance to Iran. This would bring possible involvement from U.S. allies (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, Japan, Israel and the U.K., although the latter two would quite possibly be involved in some capacity from the beginning). Such a catastrophic global conflict could become World War III.
Israel may not manage to pressure the U.S into regime change but could encourage a pre-emptive strike against the nuclear facilities only. If conventional weapons are used, Iran is likely to retaliate against Israel with missiles and may block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil channel. They had threatened this as a consequence of sanctions, now sanctions have been imposed it seems Iran has realized that blocking the Strait would only tighten the noose. Iran could also re-evaluate the consequences of a failed state in Iraq against a bloody defeat for the U.S in its neighboring country if Israel goes it alone, which would undoubtedly need a green light from the U.S in any case. It would be a definite if the U.S were involved in the strike.
The Sunday Times reported that Israel is planning an independent strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, many of which are underground, using nuclear bunker busting bombs. Israel has denied the report that brought retaliatory threats from Iran. If such a pre-emptive strike were mounted by Israel, the U.S. or both using tactical nuclear weapons, the world's fate will be in the hands of Russian and Chinese leaders and whether or not they decide to honor the SCO verbal military agreement and unleash any of their nuclear arsenals to retaliate on Iran's behalf.
Given such a possible chain reaction of unintended, but foreseeable consequences, I ask:
Wouldn't it be better to allow Iran to continue enriching, and instead apply the current amount of pressure on them to allow IAEA inspectors to roam freely around Iran, to make sure no enriched Uranium is diverted to the covert weapons program which the U.S is so sure exists?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Ariel
No. It will be better to put GROUND FORCES in Iran for the soul purpose of dismantling, destroying, and confiscating whatever sites can't be bombed. You obviously have no fucking idea Mr. Bailey, how dangerous nuclear arms would be in the hands of these Islamic nazis. Inspections are worthless when a country has secret development going on. And, yes, in the sense that this regime calls for genocide (rarely even did Hitler do this explicity), that it is a NAZI like regime. All the fucking apologia in the world doesn't change this fact.
"Wouldn't it be better to allow Iran to continue enriching, and instead apply the current amount of pressure on them to allow IAEA inspectors to roam freely around Iran, to make sure no enriched Uranium is diverted to the covert weapons program which the U.S is so sure exists?"
2 - Alan
Opening Salvos of a greater Middle East War - A war involving the US, Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda...
3 - Zedd
Liam
Perhaps I missed it in your previous entry, why can Iran NOT have nuclear capability?
4 - ProfEssays
I repeat, the only solution to this problem is regular air strikes on Iran.
5 - Daniel
Let me assure you that I will bring Iran to it's knees and lower, I will make them slaves to the world, and I will make them an example of worthlessness among all mindkind.
No one can change this, it is my choice and my choice alone, there is no reason no doubt, I do not answer any whys.
6 - Cyrus the Great
Who the hell are you Daniel? You are worse than any radical muslim. Your heros couldn't take care of 3K Lebanese militia and now you want to confront Iran. You talk like a stupid, spoiled and abused child. I bet you never ever have had a war experience. Otherwise you wouldn't advocate war so much. It seems southern Lebonon war defeat was not enough for you. Let me tell you something, if Israel hasn't attack Iran yet is because her leaders know about grave consequences. They never follow diplomacy or international law. Why the should do it this time. They say we are waiting for diplomacy to work. These are all BS. They were waiting for Arrow anti-ballistic missile system to be operational. But, what a waist. Before full deployment, Iran successfully test fired multiple war head version of S3. Read debka Daniel. Read articles from Uzi Robin. They are scared Daniel. THEY ARE SCARED. You better be scared. There is no winner in a war. Both sides will be loosers.
7 - Xerxes
All this jingoistic "bomb Iran" nonsense is just that. Iran is a defacto nuclear power so get over and move on. The world is not going to end just because Iran decided to opt for nuclear energy. There is no military solution against a 3000 year old civilization with 74 million highly nationalistic people.
8 - Liam Bailey
Hi Xeres and hi everyone:
I am the author of this article, I wrote it what seems like an age ago now (3 years'll do that to you). I have always advocated against any kind of strike on Iran and still do. Xeres put it particularly well however when he said:
The world is not going to end just because Iran decided to opt for nuclear energy. There is no military solution against a 3000 year old civilization with 74 million highly nationalistic people.
Even if Iran gets/does have nuclear weapons capability, it will simply enter the same mutual destruction reciprocity that has prevented all other nuclear powers from unleashing their power on their enemies.
I, like I am sure everyone else, hope that this continues, and say: if we know they are far too destructive to be used; why keep them at all?