What's Your Guess?

When the I.A.E.A. confirmed that Iran had 3,000 operating centrifuges, it gave me pause for concern, but since their centrifuges weren't fast enough to create weapons grade material, it was going to take them a long time to get anywhere. Unfortunately we now know that they've created a new centrifuge modeled after the Pakistani P-2 centrifuge that they're calling the IR-2. They have also announced their plans to install 6,000 of the new centrifuges.

Israel has tested their new missile defense system that will be deployed as swiftly as possible. In their never ending game of one-upsmanship, Iran then fires off 6 long range missiles to demonstrate the increased range.

So here are the questions:

With a new missile defense system, will Israel forgo an attack on Iran's nuclear enrichment site at Natanz?

My guess is they will still launch an attack. Although the missile system may work, without actual combat use, they will not risk the total destruction of their country on it.

Will an attack on Natanz cripple Iran's nuclear program?

Probably not. They may be radical, but they're not stupid. I have no doubt they have additional facilities, probably underground and well protected.

If Iran is attacked, will they try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz?

That's they're stated game plan. It will not stand however, as a vast majority of the nations on earth will support any military action to keep the straits open.

Will the imposition of tougher sanctions bring Iran to the table?

Probably not. The problem being much the same as it was with the sanctions that were imposed on Iraq. The oil-for-food scandal is being played out in different variations even now. Without the support of Russia and China, we may not have the time to let sanctions do their job before Israel acts unilaterally.

Should we abandon diplomacy and sanctions, and work closely with Israel on a plan to attack Iran?

Absolutely not! We reached the point in Iraq where the Iraq's are talking about a timetable for American troops to leave. Any type of attack on Iran would destroy everything that we've accomplished. Even though Iranian's are not Arabs, the religious and historical ties to the Middle East are enough for almost every Arab nation to side against us.

This is one of those scenarios where the bad guy will get all the sympathy unless there is irrefutable evidence of an attempt to construct nuclear weapons.

When Hitler attacked Poland in September of 1939, he bluffed the crap out of the British and the French. Had they attacked the Germans in Poland immediately, Hitler would have had to pull his horns in because he didn't have sufficient tanks and planes for a lengthy battle. That's why Hitler didn't attack France and Belgium until almost 8 months later - he needed to build up his strength.

I mention this because there is always the possibility that Iran is bluffing regarding their new centrifuge. I sure don't know if they're bluffing, but when it comes to nuclear warfare, how long do you wait before you call the bluff?

Up until Israel demonstrated their new missile defense system, I was convinced that they would attack Iran before the end of the year. It is my sincere hope that their missile demonstration gives us more time for diplomacy and sanctions to work. I also hope that Israel has the goods on Iran before they do anything, and if they do get the necessary proof, share it with the rest of the world instead of just attacking.

One other question before we put this puppy to bed:

If Iran tries to sell long range missiles to that nut case Chavez in Venezuela, do we treat it like President Kennedy treated Cuba and Russia?

In my opinion, we have no choice but to act. The Roosevelt (Teddy) Corollary (1904) to The Monroe Doctrine (1823) averred that the United States would police the Western Hemisphere if a country doing business with Europe was guilty of "chronic wrongdoing". I know, it sounds like Dubya's "evildoers", a particular word I came to abhor while listening to him speak. Although Presidential doctrines have no legal standing, The Monroe Doctrine has been held to historically by all of our Presidents, and if Hugo Chavez were to use all of his Citgo dollars to try and purchase long range missiles, we have to make sure that it doesn't happen. If they're already there, they have to be removed, one way or another.

I apologize for the lengthiness, but I suspect that your replies will also require some length as well. I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts.