Redstate

TO: streiff

RE: The Plan...

...as I see it will be that Israel will do the initial strike. And, considering Iran's recent rants about eliminating Israel, they'd be justified.

However, Iran would have to go through US--as in Iraq--in order to get to Israel. And therein lies the proverbial rub. Once they attack US, we'd have a free hand at eliminating all the rest of their nuclear research programs. And if they were stupid enough to attack our forces in Iraq....they'd end up seeing a repeat of the fabled Highway of Death from GWI.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

If the Iranian nuclear warheads don't have an address, the Iranian leadership (command-and-control) does have an address. There's a way to attack Iran. But our main problem is here at home. We probably don't have the will to handle all the terrorism that could happen in the United States, or do what's required to cope with frequent 9/11-type terrorist attacks on American soil--really control borders and control movement. We can't even handle (here at home) the minor setbacks in what is otherwise a great victory for Democracy in Iraq.

Iran thinks their "ace up the sleeve" is international terrorism. They have thousands of gung-ho human cruise missiles at their disposal, that Americans can't have and won't have.

I'm skeptical too that just a bombing campaign would get the job done. But IIRC one of your recent articles on Iran was also skeptical that we have the national will to mobilize the large scale ground operation (including reserves/Nat Guard) that would be needed for a ground attack.

Maybe I am not recalling your prior article correctly, but do you think that kind of military effort is politically doable especially without a "smoking gun" finding by the UN, which will never happen.

we will have a war with Iran. At least not right away. The Iranians will pretend to give a little, the talks will include various other countries, and there will appear to be no immediate cause for action untill Bush leaves office. After that, things might change.

We might not be able to "win" a war against Iran with air strikes, but we really don't have to.

Taking out their command structures (as noted above), along with a judicious amount of wiping out their security apparatus?  Not a bad idea, as long as we combine it with a massive leaflet-dropping campaign that tells the Iranian people what we're doing.

"We're currently kicking the crap out of those Ayatollahs you hate so much.  Care to join us?  We're not coming in, we're not invading you, we really don't have the time.  Love and kisses, America."

If the only goal of an attack is to destroy the nuclear capacity of Iran it can absolutely be accomplished by air, albeit with SF soldiers painting some of the targets.  If the goal is regime change or the destruction of Iran's capacity to wage war than air power is insufficient, I agree, but to date the only aim I have seen discussed is the destruction of nuclear facilities (which would necessitate the destruction of some radar and command/control facilities too).  

I think a possible if not necessarily likely scenario is an Iranian retaliation by conventional means against our forces in Iraq; the movement of such forces would open them up to aerial assault and then the use of ground troops to rout the remainder.  I believe the capacity for retaliation by Iran is overstated.  They may try to incite terror and they will probably succeed in some places, but the most immediate danger to American lives seems to be the possibility that Iran would rouse the Mahdi Army against our soldiers.  An attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz would be almost certainly be checked by air and naval forces, and the Iranians know it.  I believe the breadth of the strike will dictate the Iranian response.  A concerted effort to destroy command facilities would probably encourage a broader response, but a more targeted effort would probably beget a limited response.  

As formidable a force as they are, well trained, well equipped, well led and certainly well motivated, I don't see that they have anywhere near the resources required for a strike of this magnitude at that range. There are simply too may targets that need to be attacked. There are several dozen nuclear sites, and they'd have to neutralize the air defenses and the air force before the strike packages even start their work.

Short of a preemptive nuclear strike, and I seriously doubt they would do that, I don't see Israel being able to do this. No, if there is going to be a strike on Iran its going to have to be us.

"We simply can't afford the strategic blow that would follow acquiescing to Iranian possession of nuclear weapons."

Yes Iran having nuclear weapons is terrible, yes it would edge Israel closer to taking unilateral action, but why is military action by the US necessary or even wise? Are we the US becoming the world's police man as many predicted, is this a good thing? Where are the Russians, the Germans, the French and the EU in general. Hey France has an unemployment problem, let them start a ground war that takes lots of ground forces.

I'm having a hard time with the concept of the US being the 911 response force for the whole world frankly. Perhaps it's time for the US to become isolationist once again.

I don't think the Bush and his administration have the public behind them enough to start another war.  The trust just isn't there, especially if we don't have Russia, China, or a coalition of significant European players other than just the UK (where Blair similarly seems to lack the public's trust).

Until the diplomatic cards are in our favor, Iran will continue enriching as much Uranium as it can.

There's a diary at Kos today by John Laesch that points out another big problem with any attack, which is that Iran would likely follow it by trying to close off the Strait of Hormuz, as they've threatened to do.  The major oil disruption could be particularly devastating.

 but when you start to evaluate the Iranians response in terms of a tit for tat trade you give Iran too much credit.  One of the left talking points is that we can get along with the Islamic fundamentalists by simply "not making them mad".  The trouble with this is there is no specific thing we can do to lessen their feelings of aggression against us.  If they hate Israel and the US and want Israel to be pushed into the sea and the US to pull out of the Middle East and promise never to come back, what part of not attacking too much will appease them?  If we strike the nuclear facilities, we will also strike to de-capitate the leadership.  War is very nasty.  We know it is the leadership that is driving the engineers.

It is true that our forces have put us squarely between Israel and Iran.  This probably irks Iran as much as anything.  They are rattling their sabers to maintain their population in a state of rage against the West.  This is to keep pro-western sentiments below water level.  It seems to be working, hence it will continue.  Becoming the first terrorist state with nuclear weapons and delivery systems places Iran on the forefront of the "purify the Middle East" movement.  Iran wants to play with the big movers and thus I see a state of conflict soon.  

The only thing to be decided is whether we go with a pre-emptive strike or whether we or Israel has to absorb a first strike to give the US greater moral authority.  It may be the latter because we may trust our sophisticated anti-missile apparatus to deflect a strike.

As far as air power or air strike and follow up,  I believe the war makers have already determined that an air strike alone will (a) support the anti-west sentiment and (b) not really solve the problem long term.  Thus a war is coming.

I don't want to wake up one day to hear, "This is Brit Hume, reporting from Washington - because our New York studio was destroyed in a nuclear explosion."  That's why we can't let Iran have nukes.

Oh, you say, they would never do that, they'd know we'd destroy them.  Well, for one, deathe did not stop the 9/11 hijackers.  And what if they passed the bomb off to some suicide bomber?  If we wanted to attack Iran then, how would we prove a link?  What if we couldn't?  What if Iran got their production facilities up to the point of building a bomb every 2 or 3 weeks and sending them here, untraceable, until our nation was destroyed?  Or worse yet, what if they built up for a while and then sent an entire arsenal of nuclear suicide bombers here and wiped out all out major cities in one fell swoop?  Surely we would respond then, but should would wait until such a catasotrophe occurs?  I for one do not think that that is a good idea.

These are the potential consequences of being isolationist in today's world.  For whatever gains such a policy might have, would the losses be acceptable?

Yet at the same time we don't seem worried about countries with 'stan in them where ex Soviet Nukes are poorly stored and controlled, nor for that matter Nukes in the ex USSR floating around. Let's not even consider what the North Koreans are capable of by the way.

While I agree with your worry about terrorism, it's real and there are lots of Jihadist out there gunning for the US, is this alone reason enough to take on Iraq at this point in time? The threat may be real that Iraq could use these weapons against the US, most likely against US forces in the Middle East, but is that threat reason enough to take unilateral action?

We seem to be taking on a role in the world of the world's policeman, a very dangerous role and one that is quite expensive in terms of money and potentially US lives. This is not the same argument as "Leave them alone, they won't get mad at us" however. Probably the don't kick over fire ant hills for no good reason argument.

It does look like the world's superpower is going to get stuck in this nasty job.  Britain has just announced that they no longer have the stomach for it.  The problem is whether we could make an isolationist policy work.  Did it work in Europe's past wars?  No.  With 9-11 and a world wide need for oil would it work today?  If we wanted it to work, what would be the consequence?  Watching Europe fall under Islam with an attendant oil cut off?  I know it sounds extreme, but what we know about radical Islam is that they are prone to think in extreme terms and they do think globally.

So even though I hate the "nation building" moniker, I see what the Bush administration is trying to do, and I see Iran as being part of the problem.  And while it is not smart to kick over a fire ant hill (I know personally) it is also unacceptable to let them claim your entire yard.

over the missing nukes.  I don't know what to do about them.  However, we should not fearing dealing with one problem because another exists.  As far as north korea goes, I don't know if they have suicide bombers...MAD might work with them.

But to allow a nation that sponsors suicide bombers to become a nuke factory?  That sounds like lunacy.  I don't like being the world's policeman.  But if the rest of the world won't protect it's citizens, that does mean we shouldn't protect ours?  If London, Paris, or Berlin are destroyed, should we point and laugh and say, "HA HA.  You should have helped us invade!"  Even if you say yes, there is no way to know that it won't be an American city.

I don't see this as knocking over a fire ant hill just because it's there.  It's more like killing a small termite colony before it can grow large enough to devour your house.

Well when it comes to Red Ant Hills, I always prefer some Malathion bait liberally applied to the yard and a bit of wait to see if that takes care of the problem.

When it comes to Iraq, the population is young and not in love with the Mullahs from what I read.  Perhaps the better course is not to kick over the hill but instead open more doors that make it harder for the Mullahs to retain control.

Why would we expect it to work now? So, the rest of the world wants to wait and see if Tel Aviv becomes a mushroom cloud, should we? And American interests would certainly be served by a major attack within the US using nuclear weapons...

Some jobs are ugly. Some jobs dangerous and thankless...

Those who say we can't be the policeman of the world have only one alternative to offer: The United Nations.  Watch this week for my diary, The United Nations-A Portrait of Failure It's long (sorry about that), but I will detail how the UN is incapable of solving anything.

So who does that leave? Unless you want to begin studying the Koran instead of the bible, I'm afraid the task falls upon the United States.

There IS no one else willing to do the job!

I don't see where we have the ground forces to sustain a military presence in Iran, and also:

• Maintain a viable presence in Iraq and Afghanistan
  
• Present a credible deterrent to the Chinese (re. Taiwan), and North Koreans (re. South Korea, whom we're still on the hook to at least assist in case the DPRK attacks).
  
• Deal with whatever else may arise.

Concur that committing ground forces is the best (and, most likely, only) way to defeat the mullahs, deal with their loony President and end their nuclear menace once and for all.

But, if we don't have the means to execute a ground forces plan, then what does the President do?  Not act at all?  I doubt he can afford to do that.

Seems to me his next best alternative is to launch an air campaign with a realistic understanding and acknowledgment of what such a limited campaign CAN achieve.  Damaging the Iranian nuke program, and thus slowing it down, does offer the possibility of buying us and the world time.  Time in which to build support for a ground invasion, convince reluctant allies to participate, and perhaps foster an internal revolt in Iran that might lead to the mullahs being toppled.  

In the end, the President and JCS have to build the best plan they can, that takes into accounts the real constraints we face.  Unless the country is willing to mobilize all its Reserves and National Guard (at the very least), I don't see us having the resources to do it all.  And, we'd have to expect that we'd have to do it all ourselves.  

An air power-focused strategy won't bring us victory, in and of itself.  But, it could buy us time, during which we can craft another means to achieve victory.  It's not a complete answer.  But it's better than no answer at all.

Bugger that you tell us what won't work without telling us what will.

For all of the puffery of 'chickenhawkishness', now is precisely the time to hear concisely from those whos business is war.

Oh, you say, they would never do that, they'd know we'd destroy them.  Well, for one, deathe did not stop the 9/11 hijackers.

The 9/11 hijackers were all Sunni Muslims. Not Shia.

It reamains to be seen that any nation state will turn over strategic assets to a bunch of chaotic terrorists. Most likely likely they will find out what every other nation with nukes has discovered.

The can be used for deterrrence, but nothing else.

AT LEAST GET THE RIGHT COUNTRY!!!

OR ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING THE US INVASION OF IRAQ?

IRAN! RIGHT HAND, POINTER FINGER, BOTTOM ROW!

There IS no one else willing to do the job!

maybe that is because we have played Uncle Sap for so long the other nations know we will do the job for them. I am not advocating isolationism. But I am saying that the time will come soon when we have to rethink the strategic picture of the world. It is impossible for us to continue to feed, fortify, and facilitate the rest of the globe all by ourselves.

  John Kennedy said we would "bear any burden" but guess what? That was nearly half a century ago. time to start something new. Regional Balance of power?

however, we must make sure they do not get nuclear weapons before a revolution takes place.  That would be a disaster.  But if we could get them to revolt internally, that would of course be much perferable.

Still, how do we know the new government wouldn't just be another non-democratic theocracy  intent on destroying Israel and the West?

(btw, I think you mean Iran.)

Because that's just what you're doing.  Placing a bet.  On the one hand "they" will act in a rational manner.  On the other hand, they'll kill a million or so people somewhere.

And they think they'll get away with it, in part, because the left will continue to wring their hands at the sight of Tel Aviv in smoldering ruins and say, we can't retaliate!  That would bring us down to "their" level.  We can't have the "blood of innocent civilians" on OUR hands.

And, oh by they way, at least two UN councils will declare the smoldering ruins to be the fault of US policy in the middle east and condemn us.

Would it take to wipe Israel off the map? How many would it take to invoke the 12th imam scenario? You can't assume you are dealing with completely rational people here. That is a mistake we've made in the past, and millions of innocent people died for it.

We send the Congressional Democratic Leadership to Tehran to see if they can talk sense into the Mullahs.

Then we bomb the Mullahs.

Thank you for pointing out my typo....Iran not Iraq.

Do you feel better now?

The 9/11 hijackers were all Sunni Muslims. Not Shia.

I'm always getting these two confused. Now, is it the Sunni or the Shia that recognizes Israel's right to exist?

And I can never remember, is it the Sunni or the Shia that supports Hamas and suicide bombers in Israel?

And was it the Shia or the Sunni from all over the world who were training in Saddam Hussein's Salman Pak terror training camp?

Now, which group, the Shia or the Sunni that professes hatred for the US, took our people prisoner in our embassy, and have vowed to destroy the great Satan ever since?

I'd appreciate if you could clear this up for me!

After that it will be NK only worse. Once they get the bomb, there is nothing we can do until they use it. They are untouchable.

and we can certainly hope so.  However, all it would take would be one crazy guy in charge of the government to hand off the bomb.  And while I don't really know how Iran's REAL leadership thinks, I don't know that the best option is "I really hope they aren't like their mouthpiece.  I really hope that, even though they actively support suicide bombers in Israel, they won't give them nukes."  The thing is, if they thought like Westerners, then I think you would be right.  However, they don't think like us.  You might be willing to sit back and hope they're just pretending to be evil, but they won't take it to the extreme.  I for one don't think this is a good idea.

Remember Iraq the first time around? We encouraged the people to rise up against Saddam then left them to twist in the wind. The Iranians aren't going to make the same mistake. They prefer not be be tortured to death as much as the next guy.

Sure, we can wait for the people of Iran to replace the mullahs. But are they going to do so before the mullahs get and use the bomb? How much are we prepared to bet on that. {Hint: The price of error is very, very high}

And in my humble opinion, the people of Iran are not going to rise up and toss the mullahs on the ash heap. not going to happen.

Airpower = great! Special Forces/Rangers = great! But they're just used to soften/prep for the big heavy divisions. That is if its done right. Something we should've done back in January 1980. I fault Pres. Reagan for that. Once the hostages were released he should've demanded restitution and if not rec'd, then gone in guns-a-blazing. Of course his cowardly predecessor was of no use. If he'd gone into Iran, kicked behind, hung all the radical mullah's and students we wouldn't have young men die'ing in the region right now. Thats another story. But we need to finally get some payback. My worry is will the young, worthless  males of this nation step up. We'll need a larger military. I believe the Iranian rulers are scared and worried that we will attack. Thats why they're puffing up their chests, blustering. Threatening. They know we'd go through them like cr_p through a goose.  Again, will our young males step up and volunteer? The young males I see driving around in their cars w/the hip hop music blasting? Tatoo's and nose rings? Thats what worries me. Will these maggots step up and fullfill their obligation?  What I see walking around posing as men, well they don't just cause me to well over with enthusiastic. And the "best" we have are already in uniform. Serving. But they are such a small percentage. And burning out from overuse. Will we be able to muster what we need to go into Iran? I'm asking. Anyone?

you are the one rationalizing. You impart irrational thoughts to the Iranians, and yet although some of them might be fanatical, It seems to be just the same as the old Soviet Union. The ones in power believe in their cause, but not enough to get killed over it.

  Otherwise, why wouldn't they have attacked American troops in Iraq? Or, for that matter, why would they have brokered an armistice with the hated Saddam when they were getting the upper hand in that war?

  I would say that a reading of history, and personalities, would make North Korea many more times more frightening than Iran, because Iran is not ruled by just one Despot.

  This seems like a rush to war, and I do not see anything good coming from it. We had better think it over very hard.

An endless succession of 9/11s here and elsewhere. Somebody needs to root out the terrorists and those who support them where they live. That somebody is us. If we don't do it, it doesn't get done. If they aren't busy getting killed in the Middle East, they will be busy carrying out attacks on the West.

probably could slow down the nuke program.  It would not, in and of itself, cause the regime to surrender.  They could rebuild the program fairly quickly.

I think this gives us three choices:

1. Let them get the bomb and hope they don't use it.
   
   
2. Hit them with massive air strikes every five years or so.
   
   
3. A full scale ground invasion.  This would probably require either a broad coallition (unlikely), pulling troops from other commitments, increasing tour lengths, or a draft.

The question is, which one's the best choice?

Still, how do we know the new government wouldn't just be another non-democratic theocracy  intent on destroying Israel and the West?

it doesn't have to be a theocracy to remain intent on nuclear weapons and the destruction of Israel. All you need is some guy who fancies himself the new Darius out to restore the Persian Empire. Just because they might have a revolution doesn't mean its going to be a "good" revolution; thats how we got this mess to begin with.

The Shia, share the same hatred of the west and of Israel, but do not share the same motivations of the radical Wahabbis, of the Suni.

  Check it out yourself. Almost all of the attacks upon the USA or Britain in the last fifteen years have been wahabi.

pulling forces out of Germany...no need to defend them anymore..and we can pull out of a lot of Europe. Of course, their economies depend a lot on US forces there, but we're pulling out anyhow. Maybe, without the US supporting them, they will learn to defend themselves. Of course, their armies are NOT built up because they have depended on the US. So, it will take years before we can count on them. Do we really have time to wait for the world to catch up?

Sure, I agree, it would be nice if the rest of the world came along, BUT, look at any UN action and who always did the heavy lifting? Same with NATO! Sure we have allies, but it always falls on the US to do the heavy lifting!

Wishing it wasn't so doesn't feed the dog!

Act precipitously, with no real immediate threat, and: 1. Polarize all anti-American sentiment permanently 2. end any chance of non-radical forces in Iran to gain control, and 3. open ourselves up to a DEFINITE nuclear retaliation if we are not 100% successful in stopping them?

I don't share your confidence!

Which is why we need another doctrine.

the answer is YES!

It seems to be just the same as the old Soviet Union.

What is your basis for this statement? Their beliefs and motivations have nothing in common with the USSR. You might as well compare them to the UK, or Brazil, or India, or the Klingons.

Otherwise, why wouldn't they have attacked American troops in Iraq?

They are. Every day. They just aren't using conventional forces to do so. Being stupid and being insane are not the same thing. Like Saddam, they know they have zero chance at winning a conventional war. The best they can hope for is to destabilize and pick off one of our guys at a time until we turn tail and run.

I would say that a reading of history, and personalities, would make North Korea many more times more frightening than Iran, because Iran is not ruled by just one Despot.

I'm much more concerned about Islamofascists that want to bring the West down to its knees and the North Koreans who want to maintain their "worker's paradise" and comfortable lifestyle in relative isolation from the rest of the world. NK is still a concern, of course, but that train has left the station anyway.

This seems like a rush to war, and I do not see anything good coming from it.

Sure, as opposed to allowing the Iranians to develop a nuclear arsenal. I see all kinds of good stuff coming from that.

I may have been too optimistic.

think it wise to attack and kill the Iranian command and control.  Sure, President Ahmadinejad is a kook, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is somewhat sane and rational.  In addition, most of the recent heads of the armed forces and generals were approved by the Majlis (Parliment) during the tenure of reformist Mohammad Khatami, so they are probably the most rational bunch of military leaders we're ever going to deal with.  

Attacking and killing the Iranian leadership will only strengthen the hand of the conservatives in the Majlis, it will provoke a violent response in the Assembly of Experts who will likely replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, deputy of the Assembly of Experts and a reactionary.  This is important because Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwah that use of nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, is against Islamic law, anyone who uses them or permits their use is committing a grave transgression against Allah, peace be on him.  Rafsanjani, to my knowledge, has not issued such an edict so Iran's hand will be freed to use nuclear weapons.  

Any attack will likely also lead to the Guardian Council to effectively replace the current president (who is seen as a good civil servant, unprepared to fight a war) with a more conservative and reactionary leader.  Though the Iranian constitution forbids outright removal of the president, short of impeachment, the Guardian Council or the conservative Majlis can and will take over the day to day operations of the military.  Which is bad news, since these organizations are filled with religious zealots who have little respect for their own lives, much less for anyone else's.

I don't proclaim to have all the answers, but an all-out attack in the Iranian leadership will likely provoke a severe backlash.  A targeted and sustained bombing campaign against confirmed nuclear sites, I believe, is the way to go.  We may not get every nuclear site, but we sure can slow them down and buy time for our political and economic sanctions to work.  Or for the Iranians to overthrow their own leaders from within or at least vote the reactionaries out of office.  

the first 2 are definately OK.  The 3rd could be a problem, which is why whatever we do, we must be sure it will work.  I am not so sure a "let's hope they don't wipe us out" will work.  It could ... but then if it didn't it would be a total disaster.

You make a valid point, how long should we wait for regime change in Iran and what are we willing to bet?

I suppose the answer comes down to fear.

How much do you fear that the current regime in Iran is willing to be an aggressor once they have Nuclear arms? How much is rhetoric for domestic consumption and how much the leadership believes what they are saying.

How much do you fear that if the US does not act, the Israelis will act unilaterally.

How much do you fear that a future President will not have the stones to act. President Bush has shown  a willingness to use US military power, but will a future President, D or R, have the same resolve to act should the Iranians become open aggressors.

I don't know how much fear on these matters I personally have that pushes me to a point of view that a first strike is justified. At this juncture, we all have fears, do we act on them at this time or in the near future or not? The answer sort of defines how long you think the clock should run.

Thats exactly what I am arguing. It is a little bit over the top. We are caught up in some major fearmongering and sabre rattling. All I am saying is sit back, realax, try to take the long view of this.

just signed up 50,000 of those young people as suicide attackers to respond in case we attack; 50,000 or those young people who admire America so much; 50,000 of those young people who are so upset at the mullahs.

If 99% of them are just names on paper they still got 50,000 of those young people that the left is so sure are the future of Iran to put their names on paper. And if 99% are just names that will never do anything that leaves 500 people prepared to commit suicide on the orders of the mullahs. That's 500 more suicide attackers. And remember, during the Iran-Iraq war one of the ways the Iranians dealt with Saddam's army was to send thousands of women and children at them armed with sticks and pitchforks. Saddam used chemical weapons to deal with these attacks; we don't have chemical weapons.

sound like rationalizations

 Mark my words, if we act precipitously, nothing good will come of it.

The ones in power believe in their cause, but not enough to get killed over it.

Have you been paying ANY attention to the news at all? Even the MSM has been reporting the statements by Ahmadinejad!

He believes himself to be the 12th Imam, and that it is his destiny to destroy the the west and bring about a global Islamic theocracy.

to the threat to the straights is to do nothing and let them get nuclear weapons? If they think can close them off with conventional weapons now against the US Navy, how long does Mr Laesch think it will take them to close the straights if they have nuclear weapons?

If this is what passes for rational thought in America then we'd all better learn Farsi and the direction to Mecca.

To not respond to a single point. "Rationalizations" is just a good catch all when you have no response to the substance, I guess.

I see American cities as radioactive waste heaps for the next 50 years.  Does that count as "the long view?"

are optimistic. You hear it all the time "we'll the young people don't like the mullahs so all we have to do is help them stage a revolution", blithly neglecting that the mullahs came to power on the back of a revolution led by young Iranians.

As far as I know there is nothing in the "Revolution Rulebook" that says it has to be a good revolution, just look at France 1789.

the past century, the other one bent on world domination! The world almost appeased him too long too!

Mecca is East...West...North...and South! Can't go wrong with that!

if we do not engage in a first strike we will most certainly have to engage in a second strike.

I hsve no doubt that we will win. My doubts are about what we say to the dead and dying in some American, European or Israeli city:

• "We had the ability to prevent this but it just didn't seem right somehow"?
  
• "We had the ability to prevent this but we didn't want people to think bad thoughts about us."?
  
• "We had the ability to prevent this but the UN wouldn't approve."?

What do we say to the dead? What do we say?

to get personal. I value your posts most of the time. But I saw little Substance in what you are saying. Look, maybe we will have to act eventually, but we should only do so if we have very hard evidence of the Iranians real intentions.

  My own view, and one which is compatible with both history and human nature, is that they are a shaky regime which is sabre rattling only to draw attention away from their domestic problems.

  Lets not rush into what could be a very harmful process.

put up by the Mullahs, he has no real power, I am surprised you cannot see that.

There is no long view. The only thing approaching a "long view" is the mullahs have nuclear weapons and millions of people will die. If they have them sooner or later they will use them either themselves or by proxy.

a) a unilateral attack is not as simple as flying in there and dropping some bombs due to considerations about economic destabilization from world oil shortages.  And that's not even considering the effects of a world terror outbreak that could very likely follow against US interests, if not here, then  around the world (especially Iraq).

b) a unilateral attack in many ways not feasible in the current diplomatic climate since none of the big players (Russia, China, major European countries, etc.) are with us.

That's quite different than the straw man you just attacked about doing nothing about Iran's nuclear ambitions and thus succombing to Islam.

The choices are not attack now vs. do nothing, ever.  The public is just not behind the administration to take on a unilateral war against Iran, for whatever reason (most here would say it's media bias affecting public opinion, though I'd say it's more that everything we were told about in early 2003 how Iraq would occur was way off, so why trust the administration now).

So all I'm saying is let's hope that Bush hones his diplomacy skills because the aftermath of a unilateral military attack I fear would not go in our favor.

We can easily dispose of that threat, just stop all immigration or visitation from the middle east, and kick out everyone with an expired visa or suspicious ties to mid east groups.

  I am not worried about women and children with sticks.

  I am, worried about nuclear weapons in Iran, really I am, I just don't see how rushing to deal with this now is making a lot of sense.

  We are only strengthening a weak regime.

How many cities get incinerated for us to know their "real intentions"?

You view is not compatible with history and human nature. Was Adoph Hitler shakey, saber rattling? Was Pol Pot shakey? How many times do we have to listen to bad guys tell us they are bad guys and not believe them? {Hint: it only takes one if he has nuclear weapons.}

he might reflect the mullah's attitudes.  Is that a chance we should take?

AmaDinnerJacket is just a front man for the mullahs? He's just a trial ballon to see if they can scare the west into attacking them before they can get nuclear weapons?

Makse sense to me.

show me one bit of evidence that Ahmadinejad is just a clown! When a tyrant talks, it behooves the world to listen.

And don't include, in your proof, any of BrownAlum05's pap about impeachment and voting him out of office.

The choices are not attack now vs. do nothing, ever.

Do something after they have a nuclear arsenal?

you got one of those nice Persian jobs. And you'll get extra points with the mullahs under their "Buy Persian --- Or Else" program. :-)

left us alone on this one. The way it worked out is that I had to singlehandedly take the reasonable position against all the "Do it now or else", Hawks.

  I still think we have some time to defuse this situation and I believe the regime there is very unstable and might topple at any time.

  If in about two years it looks like nothing has changed then our hand might be forced.

And everywhere else in the world too. There's no shortage of Islamofascists outside the ME. We can't roll down the shutters and try to ride this out. We are far too interconnected with the rest of the world for this kind of scheme to have a chance at success. There's no way we can just keep all foreign people and goods out of the US, which is what your plan would require to be effective. And even then it would rely on Americans not venturing outside our borders.

about a massive invasion of angry Iranian women and children armed with sticks arriving at JFK either.

But in case you haven't noticed we and the Brits have 140,000 troops in Iraq. Now I know they can deal with the problem but the carnage is going to be significant; the footage is going to look terrific on al Jazerra and CNN.

the left has been refusing to listen to them for a hundred years what makes you think they are going to start now? The tyrants talk and the left assumes they are kidding; and a few years later we end up at war anyway, the only differnce is that there are millions dead along the way. Makes perfect sense to me.

Have the Iranians invaded?

Your comparison to Hitler is just wrong.

I am not saying they are not as evil as him, I am saying their motivations are different.

 

I think the third option was talk a lot and hope something good happens.  Maybe we should consider how that's working out right now, as we do the talking and Iran rushes full steam ahead toward the bomb.

if we attack Iran. Which is the point I am trying to make. Lets not rush into this.

Hit them every 5 years or so. Also, you are assuming that Iran can and will re-build their program quickly.  Why assume that?  There is nothing wrong with buying some time with air strikes.

is that they could have the bomb before that.  I hope not, but then again, how can we know what they have hidden somewhere?

we shouldn't stop them because they might get angry and fly airplanes into buildings.

Of course there are going to be repercussions, but what other choice to you offer: let the mullahs get nuclear weapons and then attack them? And if you are worried about terrorist attacks in retaliation then should you not also be concerned about terroist attacks in general, or terrorist attacks using nuclear weapons?

Another straw man.  Iran doesn't have a nuclear arsenal now.  It won't likely have even a single weapon for a couple of years at the earliest.  Just having enriched uranium is not the same as having a nuclear bomb.  We don't have to attack them RIGHT NOW. There is some time for some meaningful diplomacy, at the very least so we don't have to do this unilaterally.

The itchy trigger finger around here is ridiculous.  It's not like Iraq has turned out all peachy.  We don't exactly have a multitude of resources, military or economic, to throw at Iran, especially if the conflict were to spread after our initial attack.

to what you say, But again, Iran is not Germany, Ahmenijad is not Hitler. And for that matter, the world is not the same place it was in 1938.

  You can only take historical comparisons so far.

   If in two years nothing has changed, then maybe we should attack. But it better be with overwhelming force. Better to not attack than to leave them only wounded.

lived in Iran, I have visited Iran six times on vacation.  My family fled the Shah after he killed my grandparents, and five of my aunts and uncles.  I am fluent in Farsi, Arabic, Urdu and Russian.  I read the Iranian press and keep up on the various Iranian blogs.  I have studied the Middle East, its economics and politics, for my entire academic career, first at Brown, now at Stanford.  I believe I know what I am talking about.  If you quibble with my reasoning and have something productive to say, please say it.  

But if all you have to say is to insinuate that I am a drug user and a criminal, please keep your comments to yourself.  

they have already replaced most of the senior military commanders and civilian bureaucracy  with people from the Revolutionary Guards. They have bee stifling the sensible voices all along. And sensible is a relative term.

I agreed with you!

I believe the regime there is very unstable and might topple at any time.

But the situation has changed. I no longer believe in the wait-it-out-until-the-people-revolt theory.

The Iranian people are scared spitless of their government. It would be like hoping the German people would overthrow Hitler, or the Russian people overthrowing Stalin, when there is a huge secret police and nobody dares complain.  

In the case of Germany, the allies took care of it. In the case of Russia MAD took care of it! But, for all their faults, the Russian leaders were pragmatic. MAD doesn't work if the leaders don't mind world destruction. If their worldview is that world destruction is good because it brings about what they want, a world back in the 7th century, the danger cannot be ignored.

Waiting, only aids the bad guys!

estimates say five years, however judging from the previous intellegence disasters you might have a point.

Two years from now they will have conducted their first nuclear test.

And the players are always the same, only the calendar changes. The differnce between AmadinnerJacket and Hitler is the spelling of the name.

In one year has changed your mind? The regime looks even shakier now than before.  

   The only way I justified supporting the war in Iraq is because I believed that the example of a human rights democracy there would be an inspiration to the rest of the middle east and would cause some bad regimes to topple.

    That could still happen, but if we blow it with Iran, and lose all cooperation and credibility in the mid east, then all of that will be a waste.  

in stopping them from getting closer by solving yet a few more technilogical challenges? Ten years ago the first claim that Iran was 10 years away from the bomb was made. The claim was renewed a few years ago, last year, earlier this year. When does the 10 years run out out? How many ten year periods are there in 10 years?

They have run cascade centrifuges to enrich uranium to 3.5% The difference between fuel-grade and weapons grade is the number of centrifuges and how long they run. They know how to build a bomb, they are just running out the clock now.

1. No true conservative quotes FDR.
   
2. "Sure, President Ahmadinejad is a kook, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is somewhat sane and rational." <--- that statement is insane.

I like Ralph Peters.  He is one of only a half-dozen commentators that I invariably read, regardless of his subject.  But I am concerned with this statement:

Yet, EBO also reflects a recurring American delusion -- the notion that, if only we can discover it, there must be a formula for winning wars on the cheap.

Just how cheaply do you wish, for winning a major war?  The Dimocrats have complained incessantly since day one in Iraq, but Afghanistan-Iraq has been the least expensive war, in terms of casualties and treasure, with the most favorable results, of any war we have ever fought, except for Gulf I, which was more a battle than a war.  The total cost of Afghanistan-Iraq will be less than the increase in GDP this year.  The current Iraqi casualties are the result of internal skirmishing as a part of the political process, and al-Qa'eda plays less and less of a role.  We need to knock Mookie out, but nothing in Iraq is now a threat to the USA or to the political process.  Peters has bought into the Dim propaganda, needessly.

The one thing that all the complaining generals agree on is that our troop strengths are off, but they do not agree on whether we should have more, or less, or none.  But the number of troops is surely about right.  Iraq was undertaken with about half the troops that were available in Gulf I, (this is a direct application of Rumsfeld's reforms and priorities) and still achieved minimal casualties, minimal costs, and maximal results.

John Hinderaker at PowerLine has made the point that the Dims have a vested interest in proving that the war is a failure; causing the resignation of Rumsfeld would validate the Dim's claims.  But given the spectacular results of the Afghanistan-Iraq efforts, and the nominal costs that have been incurred, the Dims posturing is as false as it is invalid.

In WWII, we had one-thousand bomber raids against Germany.  That means that 11,000 airmen (eleven crew for each B-17) were over Germany at one time, plus several thousand additional fighter escorts.  Circular Error Probable (CEP) for much of WWII was 3500 feet, meaning that one-half of all bombs dropped landed within 3500 feet of the aim point.  "Precision bombing" was a joke, but area targets (cities, rail yards, docks, refineries) were significantly damaged in some instances, but not in others.

Now we can send one aircraft after forty targets, rather than 1000 aircraft after one target, and the CEP is measured in centimeters.  That has got to be discouraging to someone who makes a living planting roadside bombs.

With the important exception of the Irani nukes (or other WMD), none of the terrorists have the technology or the fanaticism to sustain a serious assault on the USA.  The nazis and the Japanese militarists were serious fanatics, and only mass extermination worked to force them to accept defeat - after which, democracy.  

This is not true of the Muslims, who proudly (and courageously) displayed their purple fingers in the quest for a better life for themselves and their children.

President Bush and crew are engaged in a brave new undertaking in a brave new world, and the results so far have been highly gratifying, to any objective observer.  Dims are not objective observers.  Dims want political results for themselves, and are quite willing to sacrifice America's future to their own political objectives.

don't put money on it. Five years from now the world will have been engaged in a nuclear war in the Middle East courtesy of the mullahs.

immediatly above on what I think we could lose if we attack Iran.

 I agree with you that the war has had mostly favorable results so far, but things are still critical, and we could lose it all. So this whole Iran debate is not taking place in a vacume.

destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities would be strengthening a weak regime. I guess with your logic I'd like to really strengthen Iran into a mighty giant.

Those fanatics have always wanted to hit us with terrorist strikes.  They would now if they could.  I don't see terrorism increasing if they hit us.  In fact, after we whacked Afghanistan and Iraq terrorism in the US seemed to go away.

up of four corps, with 4 armored divisions, 5-6 infantry divisions, and I believe one airborne and one commando brigade a each.  There have been recent changes to command structure, but if I remember correctly only one corps commander has been replaced, but you are correct that the one replacement was a reactionary.  I don't know about the lower echelons, so you may be right.

As for the civil service, jobs in the civil service, like in America or for life.  Thousands for lower echelon civil servants resigned when the reformist president took power and he replaced them with reformists.  So while the heads of the department are political appointees and thus were replaced when the new administration took power, the departments are still controlled by the reformists.  As an analogy, look to our own State Department, regardless of who lead it, it remains a stronghold of liberals.  

You are right that titles like reformist and reactionary mean less in a state like Iran, but when it comes to the choosing the lesser of two evils, you still go with the lesser of the two.

in 1938 a lot of people were taking the long view as well. Your valiant efforts to not compare Iran with Hitler notwithstanding. Way to distort things.

I am not arguing against ever attacking Iran.  That's a straw man.  I already know your response is some mocking put down against another straw man that says again why we should ATTACK NOW, but for the other readers...

I am saying that I don't think Bush can attack Iran under the current diplomatic and domestic conditions.  The public is already disenchanted with him over how Iraq has turned out.  The immediate results of an attack on Iran would almost certainly be economic and potentially also include a spike in terrorist attacks, and I think such aftermath would weaken his public support even more.  There's already an increase in isolationist feeling, and I think you'd see that balloon.

Additionally, a large part of the rest of the world would likely align against us, not with us, if we were to unilaterally attack Iran.  I think we'd be perceived as trying to takeover the world more than making it safe for democracy, especially since our attacks would have drastic economic effects on the rest of the world too.

So I'm not saying we never attack Iran.  I'm saying the only real choice right now is diplomatic, like it or not, and perhaps some ideas on how to use diplomacy to force Iran to curtail its nuclear program would be a better use of the discussion.

I disagree with your first posted comment (and don't wish to argue the point).

But the comeback you posted above is pretty sharp.  I wasn't even in the fight and I got knocked down.

Ouch!

That could still happen, but if we blow it with Iran, and lose all cooperation and credibility in the mid east, then all of that will be a waste.

Blowing it would be allowing them to get nuclear weapons and becoming the biggest baddest bully on the block!

The problem here is that everyone keeps taking these countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria...each as a different war.

They are all war fronts, in the same GWOT! Iran was ALWAYS on the table. They have always been the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. ALL OVER THE WORLD!

Without re-fighting the Iraqi front, it made no sense at all to attack Iran ONLY from Afghanistan and leave Iraq on the other side with all their weapons, and incidently, a madman in charge.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Iraq would have come to the support of Iran, because we would not have been able to take Iran in a matter of days, as we did in Iraq. Iraq was the OBVIOUS target, with their UN resolution violations, and, of course we had the hope that the people would rise up in Iran. Ain't gonna happen! TOO repressive a regime.

When it will become increasingly difficult to stop someone from making nuclear weapons. The technology is well known, and other technological advances make the process more streamlined.  Can you guarantee that they cannot reprise their program?

  You see air power just ain't gonna get it, because it would leave the regime in place and make all the rest of the population our bitter enemies.

  But J, let us say I am the president, and YOU are sec def. What exactly would you propose we do, and what do you think all of the probable outcomes of that action would be?

Lot's of young folk got slaughtered in Tienamenn Square.  They can't always get it done without help.

We already blew it, we should have taken Iran out Right after Iraq.

1. I didn't like his policies, but at least FDR knew how to fight a war, so I have some respect for him.
   
2. Name for me please the policy initiatives championed by the current Supreme Leader of Iran.  Please discuss his beliefs as to whether Iran should possess nuclear weapons.  Under which Mufti did he study?  How does he feel about the Jews who still reside in Tehran?  Did he or did he not champion the rights of Christian and Jewish Iranians?  What do the Iranian blogs and newspaper have to say about him?  Did he or did he not authorize the refurbishment of the Jewish temple in Tehran to preserve it for the Jews to reclaim it when they wish?  How does he feel about western literature?  A free press?  Democracy?  

The answers to these questions will surprise and shock you.  

IMO, it is reasoned and well-said.  Please continue to comment on Redstate, as we'll undoubtedly be discussing the issue of Iran for months to come.

You are right on one count.  Iran is not Nazi Germany.

In Nazi Germany we got the bomb long before their science caught up.  In Iran the enriched uranium is already in place and the threats to use the near term result already made.

Chamberlain would be so proud of you.

is already wringing their hands and asking us to DO SOMETHING! the UN is proving itself incapable of handling the situtation and the wrold has turned to US!

Of course, as soon as the US DOES something, the world will second guess us, and condemn us. But if we don nothing, and Iran gets Nukes, the world will do the same thing!

SO WHAT!

    An insane guy is saving up for an assault weapon that costs $1000 and since he works in McDonalds it might take him a while. He puts an ad in the paper saying that he the neighboring Burger King deserves destruction. Now he's been saving up for 10 years and no one knows how close he is. Enterprising individuals from Burger King find out that the guy recently purchased some bullets.

    People in the neighborhood say that because other people have assault weapons, it's not fair to prevent the poor guy from buying his own, and since he hasn't shot anyone before he surely is not like other serial killers. Everyone knows that the guy tortures animals and scares little kids for fun and is a pure psychopath.

    I think he should have that assault weapon because who knows, he might not use it. No one else in the neighborhood has. Some people say that he is reasonable because Burger King sucks.

Another straw man!  Because I really said 10 years.  Not, oh, a couple (definition: 2) years.  Which is still enough time to try to diplomatically force Iran's hand.

There's still plenty of room to contain the threat from Iran and cut off the economic resources it needs to become a nuclear power.  It worked with...oh yeah, Saddam, but we invaded anyway, and look how well that's worked out.  Made us real popular around the world, and it took so few resources!  Somehow I just don't see the public having the stomach for another preventive war that bypasses any meaningful diplomacy.

Hitler wanted to ... wipe out the Jews!

Ahmadinejad wants to ... wipe out the Jews!

Hmm, I'm sure I will find the difference soon...

do you really think President Clinton (wow, let's hope not) will be willing to do anyting about Iran?

Britian secured peace in their time.  Thing is, it didn't last that long...

around here.  The warmongering at RedState.com's getting out of hand.  As up right now, the ones that should be concerned with a nuclear Iran are israel and Europe.  Why do we have to do their war bidding? I'm getting tired that as up lately, everytime someone threatens israel it is american soldiers that have to get ready to do the fighting---After the debacle of Iraq, Bush-cheney and company lack credibility (no WMDs), which of course, is not a problem for the people around here.

I am a reciently retired Air Force Strike Eagle guy. I do not disagree with you. I know what our precision guided stuff can do. I know we can eliminate 80% to 90% of the stuff we know about and our intelligence has been able to uncover. The depth that it is buried is the limiting factor.

The problem comes in what we don't know. The Iranians have had since the 80's to develop a good secondary program that may still be hidden. So, therefor in my opinion, the problem is not the program, it is the regime that is behind the program. So, unless we get in there with a full ground game, and it doesn't have to involve occupation, but may as well, we will never know if we got everything, or what may still be hidden.

Besides, if we do occupy Iran, we don't have to worry about the country next door fueling an insurgency this time. We are already in both countries next door.

That is how I feel about it anyway.

With Hitler it was all the Jews own fault!

With Ahmadinejad it is all the Jews own...

wait, I'll get this...

My question for you would be, can we take out enough of their program to set it back severely, and take out enough of the leaders to allow a revolution to take place?

right J-man, if all it took were desire and ambition, they would be there. It's just plain too far for them to launch an effective campaign unless the refuel and rearm in Iraq or use a U.S. Aircraft carrier.

I just read an article where the U.K. will sit this one out. It seems the whole world is bent on the appaisement thing, just like they have done so many times before.

and one which is compatible with both history and human nature...

Heh.  I'd be willing to bet that in 1995 when OBL "declared war" on the US you just thought he was going to use persuasive theology to convince the people running Christian seminaries that "the way" was really Islam.  After all, Islam is a religion of peace.

With respect to theirs "internal problems", tyrants and despots don't have to rattle sabres to keep the locals in line.  They can kill them any time they want.  And usually do.  They rattle sabres because despots and tyrants are quite sure they have a compact with somebody or something that guarantees them more land and more power.  Any other argument is simply specious and a completely ignores all of history for the last 10,000 years.  Please find me a benevolent tyrant.  Oh, there's Castro.  I forgot him.

With respect to "rushing into things", tell that to the Europeans.  They've been "negotiating" with the benevolent and peaceful folk who run Iran for the last three or four years.  Aren't they making great headway?

With respect to your comment about ...very hard evidence of the Iranians real intentions., please give specifics.  Would threats to wipe out countries in the region suffice?  How about telling us that they have 40,000 suicide bombers ready to go?  How about pictures of 5,000 working centrifuges?  Maybe a nuclear test?  Or will it take an actual attack?  Would a nuclear attack be the trigger?  Or how about a conventional weapons attack backed by the threat of a nuke if we retaliate?

Since you have both history and human nature on your side, exactly where do you draw the line?

I agree with you and Streiff, but Washington seems to think otherwise. Even witht he Nuclear bunker busters we have, I just don't we it getting the job done.

If we just cripple it a little, put it out of commission for a while, they'll be back with it in a flash.

I am thinking that Washington is thinking that if we just cripple it for a while, we can take care of it later. I am not sure that is the right thing to do, it didn't work in Iraq, we're back there now, and it won't work with Iran either.

You can have respect for someone for the way they fight a war, but to admire a man who turned US further towards socialism for much else... is well not too conservative.

I've read some wild stuff about this Khamenei guy. So after you wrote all this nice sounding fluff I went and looked on the web. First article about him that I found is from BBC which addresses your "How does he feel about western literature?  A free press?  Democracy?" question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018932.stm

Then in November 1999 Ayatollah Khamenei went on TV to defend a controversial Special Clerical Court, which had just found the editor of a leading reformist daily guilty of publishing anti-Islamic articles.

Khordad editor and former interior minister Abdullah Nuri had described the court as "illegal". Khamenei hit back, saying there was a need for a court that "had the courage to put a cleric on trial and demand answers".

In August 2000, he sided with the Guardian Council in rejecting a Majlis (parliament) bill reforming the country's press law.

A letter he wrote to parliament, quoted by the state news agency, said the current law had prevented the "enemies of Islam" from taking over the press.

In May 2003, over 100 members of parliament wrote an open letter to the ayatollah, warning that unless he removes obstacles to reforms the survival of the Islamic system will be at risk.

The MPs said Iran was facing a stark choice between democracy and dictatorship. The letter was posted on two Iranian websites, but was removed by the authorities after 24 hours.

further  http://www.radioislam.org/khamenei/palesti.htm

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) 06/03/2000

Iran's supreme leader today called on militant Palestinians to continue their struggle against Israel, saying the recent liberation of south Lebanon from Israeli occupation showed what was possible.

Khamenei attacked leaders of the Palestinian Authority and said they were "agents of America and Israel."  Without referring to the Palestinian Authority by name, he said the Palestinian people should put their faith in the militants.

I really couldn't care less about how he feels about the jews and their temples inside Iran. Here is more on how he feels:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Friday for the destruction of Israel, describing it as a "cancerous tumor" in the Middle East."Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

Quite the nice and reasonable guy.

and the precise reason why I think our "first strike" should take out the air defense.  Next, actually simultaneously, the entire ruling council and as many of the bureaucrats below them as is possible.  There isn't a sane man in the lot.

Then go after the nukes.

I honestly may be getting him confused with someone else, but is that the same Khamenei that, according to Homayoun Moghdam, approved the Khobar Towes bombing?  Through Zarqawi, he also deposited 1 million Swiss francs into bin Laden's account two months after 9/11.  And, according to other sources, he was also instrumental in the murders of Darious and Parvaneh Forouhar, leaders of the opposition Iran People's Party.

You obviously know more about the region, its history and its politics than I do, but I just can't comprehend the notion that Khamenei is somehow sane and rational?  

one of his neighbors goes out and kills him, just in case you see. And it turns out that the guy was about to die of a tumor anyway, but now the neighbor is a murderer.

  See I can play at analogies all day.

did you float up from?

if we do it, it cannot be a half-measure. You have to take the regime out. Are we capable now of doing that again?

  Also, there is one other bordering state which we do not control, Pakistan. Bin Laden is probably still there. What will be the reaction there. Mushariff could be toppled by a more radicalized populace.

  So many things to consider.

have recently complete construction on a deep and hard command and control center. In fact, workers have said that it's actually like a village with streets and all. It's in the north of Tehran.

However, a nuclear bunker buster should take care of that, maybe that's the plan, chase all the rats into one hole, and close the hole!

We'll stop all immigration.  Round up those with expired visas.  And we can do that because we've put in place the mechanism to do just that.  It's good when you know exactly where all the illegals in the country are at any given moment.

And, of course, once we round up the offending brown skinned people we don't have to worry about them coming back into the country because the Congress has acted so decisively and responsibly to secure our borders.

Boy, I'm gonna sleep better tonight.  Hey, jsteele... any of that Irish stuff left?

his crimes from happening than by just killing him outright. Not many are advocating a full blown invasion and destruction of Iran. There is no doubt the guy is about to get that AK-47, it's just a matter of when. It's up to US to be a good neighbor.

And keep in mind... he IS the sanest one of the lot.

If we have perfect intellegence and know what they have for certain, then yes, we can severely cripple their program and set them back decades. However, if they have hidden complexes buried in the remote mountains that we do not know about, what we do by air will not stop them. It will only lull us into believing we stopped them. All the while they go on enriching uranium at another facility we do not know about. That is the worse case scenario that we have to fear. The scary part is that it is a realistic scenario. They were not so dumb to dispurse and bury these facilities, and we do know they did that.

as of now, is not that Iran ever actually launches its Nukes, but that they use them as tools of deterrance.  What is to stop a nuclear Iran from, say, using Iraninan Intelligence operatives to coordinate terrorist attacks upon the US and/or US interests?  Would the US be able to retaliate?  Perhaps not, becuase any threat of retaliation will be met with threats that they will use their Nukes.  I don't trust them to be rational enough to believe in MAD.

What do you mean show me proof he's a clown.  He was on CNN late last week.  If you had paid the sightest bit of attention you would have noticed the big red nose and floppy shoes.

Jeeze.  You're just dumb.

What would you do?  Please be specific as to what and when.

Thank you.

I'm smart enough NOT to watch CNN!  GOTCHA!

   I do not always agree with everyone who is right of center on every issue. But I do enjoy a reasoned debate. And this is a very important debate to have since much is at stake.

   I do want to thank everyone that it did not degenerate into name calling like the Dubai Ports debate and some of the immigration debates.

   I was called a light weight, a kid(at the age of 47) and a racist in those other debates. Here, I took up the challenge and if I made any points I hope it is just to get you to question, and think hard before taking drastic action.

  Not that we have any control over it, but that is the debate so far.

same Khamenei that, according to Homayoun Moghdam, approved the Khobar Towes bombing?  Through Zarqawi, he also deposited 1 million Swiss francs into bin Laden's account two months after 9/11.

If that were true, that would be an act of war against the US! You must be mistaken!

I do believe that what we can expect from Pakistan is already happening in Afganistan. That would give us a good planning measure. What will make it easier is that the Pakistanies are Pashtuns and are not ethinic Persians. The Pashtun culture is only found in Pakistan and Afganistan. What will dictate the situation is if the Iranian population welcomes us, or if they welcome the Pashtuns. Without local support, the Pakistanies will not be too successful. That is the only thing helping them in Afganistan. The shared culture.

Again, there are alot of variables and I am not able to see into the future.

Especially when you consider you've got Mr. "light shining from heaven upon me" running around and organizing rescue parties a la baby Jessica in order to get that Imam out of the well.  

has been perfecting the talent for appeasement and avoidance since the 1930s at least. It never ceases to amaze me that we have come so far to be prepared to gamble it all on the belief that "this time it will be different."

Its like going to see "Titantic" time after time in the expectation that the ending will be different.

I enjoy this kind of give and take discussion too.

It'd almost be like taking Americans as hostages in their own embassy.  Certainly an act that we would be forced to respond to militarily.  

I would enjoy sarcasm more if it weren't so depressing.  :o)

... like in America or for life.

In totalitatrian states a job for life often means until you violate your doctor's orders about not taking small metal objects into he back of your skull at very high speed.

Sometimes sarcasm is the last refuge of the truly frustrated!

if we use a nuclear bunker buster. My guess is that we're going to have to dig them out the hard way; bombing them until the can't hear themselves think and then ground forces to do the really dirty work and clean up what's left.

how good that makes me feel :-)

managed to string together a series of unrelated blurbs to support your notion of what the Supreme Leader believes.  He does, in fact, not like the state of Israel.  He hates the Palestinian authority.  He does, in fact, not like the United States, because we supported the Shah-ist dictatorship.  He speaks out against homosexuality, feminism, and other affronts to god.  These are the things you would expect, he is anti-Israel and anti-American.  He is a politician afterall, elected every six years, so some of what he says is definitely to play to the crowds.  

But on to the the things you would not expect.  In 2005, in Vienna, he issued a fatwa against the use, manufacture, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons as violative of Islamic principles.  He allows Christians and Jews to practice their religion freely as the Quran commands.  He has said that the free flow of ideas is an intergal part of the Shia tradition, thus he has encouraged greater use of the internet and blogs.  As a trustee of Tehran University he introduced courses which studied western liteature.  

You are right that this committment to democracy and free speech is not liberal, but this is a result of his dual role of religious leader and law enforcement officer.  He has in the past cracked down on unauthorized protests, demonstrations, and unlicensed newspapers, but this is not unsual in the Middle east.  But in the end, he did sign off on the election reformist president Khatami twice, because it was the will of the voters.  

I'm not trying to say that the Supreme Leader is someone that you would want to invite over to dinner, but he is not a raving loon.  He is capable of rational thought and not all that happy that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.  We can use his aversion to nuclear weapons to our advantage as part of our larger plan to convince Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons.  

We must realize that we are not going to engage in a full-scale attack of Iran, at least not when we are still battling insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The american people, sadly, do not have the stomach for an atttack.  We need to explore other ways of stopping them from acquiring weapons.  

how many nations had Hitler invaded? And their motivations are no different, not one d*mn bit different: power. I'd propose that the Iranian comparison to Hitler's Germany is a lot closer to the truth than others who have been compared to him.

The details always differ a little bit but at the end of the day its always the same old power play.

But again, Iran is not Germany, Ahmenijad is not Hitler. And for that matter, the world is not the same place it was in 1938.

  You can only take historical comparisons so far.

MADD will work since Iran is the USSR and Ahmenijad is Kruschev. And for that matter, the world is the same place as it was in 1962.

I suspect in your heart of hearts what you really mean is if we wait long enough the decision will be made for us; let's hope that the situation is resolved by an internal revolution or something. Hope is not a strategy.

its going fast.

That link was supposed to go here

not to have to go back in. Here, I believe this line of reasoning, from what I've read, expects to go back. The idea is to hold off the development long enough to stabilize and reduce troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, build more infrastructure to our bases in the region, and then deploy more assets in an Iranian strike. The most recent estimate of a successful strike against their nuclear facilities said it would hold off their program for two to three years. But the success of the strike pivots on the extent and accuracy of our intel as to their parallel programs. I believe we're trying to harden that up now.

That's going to leave a mark :-)

Still, I suppose its a start :-)

can get to with conventional weapons such as the GBU-27/28. Leave the B-61 mod 11 (nuclear bunker buster) out of it, at least initially.  The goal would be to set their nuclear program back 7-10 years. Then we would have to rely on some type of embargo to prevent the program from continuing while holding the B-61 trump card.  Yes a strike would be messy with their air defense system and all, but do we want to wait take another first hit on the chin like on 9/11 but this time with a nuke?  

They have a bomb in 2 years? Then I guess we are just out of luck, eh? Your plan would be great if Iran would be kind enough to keep us updated on exactly how far along they are and where all the materials are being kept. You guys had your way with NK. Look at how well that turned out. Now they are untouchable as they build up their arsenal and sell weapons (it's only a matter of time before this includes nukes) to anyone who has enough money.

As far as trying to take out the leadership, or the military command structure, we tried that in Iraq. To do it in such a way as to help topple the government is unlikely, just as in Iraq. What taking out command and control does is enable us to severly limit their control of thier military so as to disable their ability to react to our military ground game. That makes the ground game much easier for us, but it will not topple the government. The Iranian military can still control the local population without being limited by us in any way unless we have boots on the ground to protect the local population.

I think the best case, and cheapest scenario, is the Afganistan scenario where we supplied the air power, but still had to have some boots on the ground to make it work. The only issue in the equation is how many boots on the ground will it take. That will be determined by how many Iranians will take up arms and fight along side us.

Then one other significant issue has to be considered too. How many Iranians know HOW to take up arms? In Afganistan, there was an already existing gurrilla force of the Northern Alliance. We don't have that in Iran. So we may be able to depend on local population support but not combat help from them.

Again, there are alot of variables to consider. The more information there is the better.

I appreciate your credentials on this matter.  I too have been to Iran (in an uninvited capacity) on several occassions.  I never lived there.  I only hold two languages in common with you, and speak them less fluently I'm sure (and less languages in total).  While I have advanced degrees they are not from the Ivy Leauge as are yours.  So I accept your general base of education as superior.

However I may disagree with you on some matters.  I wish to focus on one.  A leader that continues to make statements heard by leaders of other countries, to wit:

1.  The boastful desire to obtain nuclear weapons,
   
   
2.  The desire to "wipe.." any country "...off the face of the map"

...can be construed by reasonable people to be the speaking points of a raving loon.

I don't know what they're teaching at Brown these days, but if the expressed desire to annihilate ones opponents through the use of nuclear weapons without some kind of rational reason (the 12th Iman thing doesn't quite do it) is it, then I'm glad for passing on Brown.

Just my opinion.

If MADD was a reliable strategy that worked with every nation, and no one who has nukes could ever use them except in retaliation, why don't we provide every nation in the world with some nuclear devices? Sounds like a formula for total and everlasting peace to me, if MADD works as universally as some believe it does.

for producing a nuclear weapon is not going to get any less complex over time, there is a finite limit to the effort to design and produce a basic weapon.

The challenge is not the bomb, its the technology and time to extract uranium from yellowcake, convert it to UF6, build and operate a sufficient number of very, very sophisticated centrifuges for long enough to extract highly enriched U235. The bomb itself if a fairly pedestrian task.

This is in marked contrast to a Plutonium device where extacting the fissile material from spent reactor fuel rods is fairly trivial but the design, contruction, and most important the detonation technology, of the bomb itself is a significant challenge.

To prevent proliferation requires controls on the fuel cycle for uranium weapons and the materials and detonation technology for the plutonium device. The bomb doesn't get easier over time.

I think DAHmich should be banned for abusive treatment of me.

Fortunately I live not far from Scottsdale, the plastic surgery capital of the world, so I can have the vicious bite marks fixed...

:>)

SpOps team to import Bushmills into Iran?

It shames me that I didn't think of it first!

This is only IF they do not have mirror facilities that will continue the program without us knowing it, even at a smaller scale. Then we would not have set them back. We would only have reduced the capacity of bomb production. They could still make bombs, just not as many. If you ever measured the size of the current state of Israel, you would know they only need one to do the job. If you read the papers reciently, you would know that destroying Israel seems to be thier goal.

it was working so well with Saddam.

If you read what I said I never claimed you said 10 years. My point was that for the past 10 years the experts have been saying Iran was 10 years away, and every few years they reissued the same shopworn 10 year projection. And now 10 years later they have fuel grade enrichment capability and people are still claiming they are years and years and years away from a weapon. The time to weapons grade enrichment is just a matter of the number of centrifuges and the amount of time they run. And once they have a critical mass of U235 assembling a crude weapon is a trivial, truly trivial, task.

It isn't a strawman, its plain simple reality.

That it is much, much easier to destroy centrifuges than it is to find and destroy enriched uranium. Once it is enriched, I am sure it is hidden somewhere. Probably lots of somewheres.

that when North Korea announced that they had nuclear weapons, they were still 10 years away from attaining them!

JIMMY, JIMMY HE'S OUR MAN!

IF HE CAN'T DISARM THEM...

NOBODY CAN!

To give them more free stuff to not develop them?

the level of dispersal also means that there must be some number of faciities that are on the critical path. For example Natanz is supposedly the centrifugal enrichment facility. But its useless without the uranium hexaflouride conversion facility, etc. So their cleverness in dispersal could be as much a problem as a help.

The Iranians are planning on obtaining nuke weapons. If you read this web post and look at the pictures, you will understand their intentions. I am not doubting them. The question is how to stop them.

http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/04/nukemodified-nosecones-and-sec/

I would've figure he moved on to a VJ slot at MTV by now.

How much redundancy they have built in the system of production.

is a thing forever.

we tell Iran that if they continue to pursue this we give nukes to all their neighbors.

if the free stuff is a bunch of completed W-88 warheads :-)

But since a previous adminstration that shall remain nameless because it would be unseemly to mention the name (you guys are always picking on Bill ooops did I slip and say Bill) is reported to have supplied the Iranians with the W88 designs ...

we have perfected spaceflight on a massive scale and have a working colony on some other planet...because this one won't be much use anymore!

their air defenses and conventional air, land and naval forces are going to get hammered enough that they won't be a problem for a decade. Then the strike packages will start on the nuclear facilities, and to make mbecker happy, the mullahs.

Where are all the Greens and the unilateral disarm folks.  Couldn't we herd a bunch of the International ANSWER folks onto a C5 (make that a C17...) and drop them off over Tehran?

That would solve the problem.

please remain at this address for the next 30 minutes. The people dressed in white who will knock on your door are your friends, they are there to help you. Please don't be disturbed or make a fuss; they really hate it when they have to use the jacket and the sedatives. I assure you that you will receive the best of care and who knows with proper care and effort on your part you may be well enough to go home in say 5 years or so ...

was not a conservative, since he liked to quote FDR.

needed in Aisle 7.

Curious username and first quote for one that truly wants intellegent debate and not just pointy sticks to wield.

Just sayin'.

You missed it up thread:

"Sure, President Ahmadinejad is a kook, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is somewhat sane and rational."

President Ahmadinejad is the one who keeps boasting about a desire to obtain nuclear weapons and wipe Israel off the map.  BrownAlum is talking about some other Iranian offical (called the "Supreme Leader").

Now I don't buy his arguements.  It seems to me that  it is too easy to pose as a moderate in Iran by letting the real crazy people like Ahmadinejah do the dirty work for you.

However, BrownAlum's point might be valid in that it might be better to exploit disagreement within the Iranian power structure rather than blowing them all away- and thereby uniting the survivors.  I think that is why we leave the decision to people above our pay grade.

killing people who are bent on killing you has a certain elegance to it and it tends to have a salutory effect on those you miss.

If/when we are forced into a war with Iran decapitation of that regime offers to best prospects for success.

At this stage the difference between "moderate" Iranian mullahs and "radical" Iranian mullahs seems to me to be more of a distinction without a difference.

I don't know why we are overly concerned with succession according to their constitution as hopefully we'd keep killing those in charge until they were no longer in charge.

We have sufficent ground forces to invade Iran successfully.

People often say we don't, but what they really mean is that we have insufficent troops to occupy Iran.

These are two different things.  If we have to invade to get the nukes we can do so.  It just means that we would have to leave the country in potential chaos.

Q: Would that be so detrimental to US interests?

We couldn't allow Iraq to become chaotic because of the danger of Iran meddling.  Whose going to meddle in Iran?  Both Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be out of it for regional struggles for a while.

Al Queda?  They are Sunni, and primarily Arab; the Iranians are Shia and Persian (Aryan).

If we invaded Iran, destroyed their nuclear sites, destroy their miltary, and destroy their oil well/pumping infastructure, and then left-  How would Iran strike back? 10,000 fanatics armed with sticks?

The key is that if we decide to confront Iran we need to think logistically, not tactically.  We need to strike them in their pocketbook: OIL.  

We don't need to seize it for ourselves, we just need to deny it to the Iranians.  Then they won't have the funds to sustain a conflict with us.

There is a huge political risk that cuts both ways. Would the American public, or even the Dems, want Iran to have nukes? Would the American public punish politicians who let that happen?

Islamofascists.

Of all the things that are repeated in ignorance this is the the one that surprises me the most.

What do you know about its origins?  What is the religeous basis for it?  I ask in all seriousness - because the truth be told I really don't think you have thought about.

The first basic in a conflict is to understand your enemy.

So I turn to Will and Ariel Durant, writing long before 9/11 or the Iraq War.  They note:

"the Sunni and the Shi'a sects divided Islam as Catholicism and Protestentism divided Western Christianity, and in the 18th century a new sect was founded by Mohammad ibn-al-Wahab, a sheik of the Nejd = That central plateau which we now know of as Saudi Arabia"

Note: of course,ALL of the participants in 9/11 were modern followers of Wahab.

"The wahabites were the Puritans of Islam: they condemmed worships of saints, destroyed the tombs and shrines of the martyrs, denounced the wearing of silk and the use of tobaco..."

What was the outcome?  The Durant's continue

'The clergy had won the the battle against the scientists, philosophers, and historians who had prospered in medievil Islam; astronomy had relapsed into astrology, chemistry into alchemy.."

From Rosseau and Revolution, p 412

Durant are describing events that ARE 300 YEARS OLD.  THAT IS HOW OLD WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS ISLAMO-FACISM IS!!.  

Of course, the obvious contrast to the west and the enlightenment is obvious.  It in fact is the real root of the struggle today.

Why is this relevant?

1.  The Bush administration's attempt to bring  secular democracy is facing a 300 year old headwind. Little, if any thought has been given to the implications of this. The Bush administration has simply pretended that the world that it wants exists, as opposed to the one that actually exists.
   
2.  The entire West has acted in complete ignorance of the Islam religion itself.  We talk about "moderates". But the moderates ultimate success can only come from winning arguments with fellow Islamists from the text of the Koran itself.  We know nothing, NOTHING, about the ability of moderates to win what are in the end religeous arguments.

In fact, history does NOT suggest that secular democracy can be supported from the Koran.  The history of Islam is the history of the Puritians winning.

Here again ,we deal not with the world as it actually exists, but in the world we wished existed.

Gary Wills writes brilliantly about christianity and the state today.  There is biblical case for a state not dominated by religion.

Can such a case be made from the text of the Koran?  Is it persuasive to fellow believers?

History suggests the answer is no.

If am right about this, the Bush administration is in the process of engaging this country in a war with Islam itself.  If modernity and Islam cannot be reconciled, and there is persuasive case that it cannot, we are in for endless war.

It is a war in which we have no allies. The British are already running from Iran.

It is a war that will result in American casualties from nuclear weapons.  In the modern world the most fleating thing of all is knowledge.  We cannot keep the Iranians from getting the bomb unless we invade and occupy them.

Am I for diplomacy? You are damn right.  Because I live in the real world.  And it is possible a way can be found to contain the Iranians the way the Soviets were contained.  

And because the alternative is a war that will go on forever.

except I think it is a pipe dream to think that Iran has not moved its nuclear weapons facilities out of reach.

The fact is that the technology to protect these facilities has far outstripped the ability to reach them via non-nuclear means. I have doubts that we would go the pre-emptive nuclear strike route.

On the rest, total agreement. If anyone thinks the Iranians can cause more trouble for us in Iraq than they are I'd like an explanation of how that would be so. Their calling out the Mahdi Army... again... would be a blessing and a move against the Straits of Hormuz would have a Gilbert and Sullivan quality to it.

simply assinine.

no one else has the nexus of a huge economy and a large population. The Europeans maintain a different defense establishment for each nation and cannot get the same value per dollar as we do were they even willing to spend the same percent of their GDP.

During the Cold War we rationalized the system by assigning tasks to various nations. The Dutch had the lead in anti-mine warfare. The German navy had responsibility for the Baltic coast. The Royal Navy controlled the Northern Approaches. The Royal Marines acquired their Arctic warfare expertise because they were troop listed to reinforce Norway. And so on.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union this specialization has largely fallen by the wayside.

The fact is that a European force cannot move or supply itself without significant US effort and outside the ROK and Australian, there just aren't many militaries in the world worth partnering with.

that you eliminate the attack on the Marine barracks and the US embassy in Beirut and the knockdown-dragout we had with Hezbollah.

Amazing what shaving a few years off a time line will do to advance an otherwise shabby argument.

is just plain stupid.

The Iranians are not capable of shutting down the Straits of Hormuz. They simply don't have the wherewithal to do it in the face of a US carrier battlegroup. So the premise is idiocy.

Also ignored is the small fact that shutting down the Straits damages Iran more than it does anyone else. Iran is an heavy importer of refined petroleum products. Sure they export crude but they don't refine anywhere near the gasoline, diesel, kerosene that they need for domestic consumption.

I'd suggest you mosey back over to some site that really keeps a weathereye out for the shenanigans of the rascally Joos.

You've worn out your welcome here.

I largely agree with your assessment except that I really don't believe we'll hurt Iran's nuclear program via air power any more than we hurt Nazi Germany's tank production by air power.

Methinks that if you're thinking along a two year timeline, you're thinking Plutonium. I don't think that Ahmadhi-Nejad is going that route. That's Fat Man. He wants Little Boy.

Little Boy is U-235. Foolproof design. Works all the time. You don't have to build a complicated implosion device to make it work. Oppenheimer didn't even have to test the dadgum thing. And now, with the much more advanced rifle type slug designs, you don't need a jihadi Deak Parsons suicide bomber to ride with the bomb to arm it in flight. In fact, Little Boy is such a simple design I don't know why we didn't come up with it in 1944 and use it on Hitler (Tibbets wrote that we would have in fact dropped it on Berlin had it been available in 1944...).

Ahmadhi-Nejad talks as if he's the cat that ate the canary. This is a guy who speaks as if he KNOWS that we will do nothing. When fanatics talk like this, they make mistakes. Yes, Bush is not popular right now, but what you're not taking into account is the fact that Ahamdhi-Dinner Jacket is doing a lot of Bush's work for him.

Going on about exterminating the Jews does wonders for Bush. It's as if Karl Rove is faxing him speeches or something.

here that I didn't tell you what to think?

we spend hours arguing, hundreds of words back and forth, and you encapsulate the whole thing in four words!

this is simply assinine.

Great, simply great!

shrugging your shoulders at the idea of a nuclear Iran a "reasonable" position.

First of all, I am a sceptic that this administration has the balls to do it. Now, Iran could force our hand. They are perfectly capable of doing everything possible to goad us into war. And if war happens my bet is that the Iranians pushed us over the edge.

Second, I doubt that conventional weapons alone would take out their nuke capabilities. In fact, I'd bet that the Iranians would be happy for us to try. They are surely smart enough to put all their good stuff inside tunnels cut into mountians the way the Soviets did a half century ago. The soviets built entire nuke cities inside mountains without the US even knowing about it. At the very least they would have their factories far enough underground that only a direct nuke strike would take it out - and even that assumes we know where the underground facilities actually are (they can be very far from their entrances).

Third, it would not surprise me in the least if Iran already has a nuclear arsenal - of old Soviet nukes. There is a difference between merely having a small number of nukes that a long-gone empire made decades ago and being able to make your own in limitless quanities. Iran clearly wants to be able to do the latter. But if we strike, they could easily surprise us by launching an old soviet nuke on a new ICBM of old soviet design. We had better make sure our missile defence system actually works!!

watch it, potty mouths don't last long here.

on Iran, but it always seems to me that the mullahs think like somewhat of a "Politburo" style. That is, they think like oligarchs. They indirectly and directly fund many different causes within the Middle East with a goal of increasing "influence". As for Ahmenjebad(sp??), he may just be a house pet, or he might have real control. The question is, where does he draw his support from, and where do the mullahs get theirs? If he controls the missile and nuclear forces, then our goal should be to strike Iran as soon as possible.

The difficulty here is determining who REALLY is in control of what. Thus I think Iran should be taken out post-haste, seeing as we do not really know the intimate workings of the Iranian government.    

I disagree with "How would Iran strike back? 10,000 fanatics armed with sticks?"  How about 10,000 fanatics on the streets of NY or DC armed with rifles purchased in Wal-Mart at a bare minimum?

Remember, Iran controlls Hezbollah and other top quality terrorists. They surely already have numerous sleeper agents here in the US who are much more competent than Al Qaida ever was. And most importantly, I find it extremely hard to believe that Iran wasn't able to obtains a fair number of nukes for itself when the USSR imploded. Yes, we know Bin Ladin tried to buy that stuff and was cheated by the russian mob, but believe me, they wouldn't dare cheat the Revolutionary Guard. Iran MUST have some old soviet nukes. They may not have enough to really face down a major power or fight a sustained campaign, but they don't need to in order to retailiate. One nuclear suicide bomber or ICBM will do. The suicide bomber is more deniable and would be the most likely course of action for them to take, probably after they unleased their 10,000 fanatics.

Your idea of giving nukes to your enemy's opposition might work with Taiwan and China, but not in the middle east. Middle east countries are too unstable and can change regimes too unpredictably. The good guys can be bad guys next week.

to think that AmaDinnerJacket has any real control. But it would also be a mistake to think that he speaks on his own. I believe the mullahs pull his strings and that the message he delivers is approved by the people with the real power.

will not even make the "crowd pleasure status" of our shock and aw attacks.  

Better yet, it may even not even go off.

Iinitially I don't think so. The machine would swing into action and everyone would go back to sleep; people form opinions based on what they know and are told. Today opinion is turned against Iraq and the administration because we have three years of being told by the Democrats and the press that everything is wrong.

The first time the mullahs used their weapons the machine would shift gears and blame the administration that let them get the things in the first place.

To the left it is all a great big game, power today and the devil take tomorrow.

and assuming that the leadership of the Democratic Party isn't as loony as the Mullahs (albeit in their own provincial way), how would you propose to get the Dem's on board?

I personally view cutting off the head of the snake at home (Dems & media) to be a MUCH bigger task than knocking out either the Mullahs or their nuke program.  The latter is messy, really messy, but doable.  The former we could do, but we can't use the military.

I want some!!!!!!!

;)

Go straight to alcohol.  And maybe some 7.62.

What is your obsession with straw men?

Did straw men ever do anything to you? For heavens sake man, leave these poor straw men alone!!! For the children's sake!!!!

over old Soviet nuclear weapons. These things have a finite functional lifetime.

Let's see, that would be

• 250,000 US army and Marines.  
• Three US carrier battle groups.  
• 100% of US air force assets.
• US intel ops, consisting of satellites and various photo op things that fly.
• 2,000 French, 500 Germans, and 2,000 combined from other NATO countries who will be flown to the fringes of the battlefield by US supplied NATO aircraft.
• The Russian and Chinese ambassadors to the UN promising not to complain about us bombing Iran.

 Did I miss anything?

You're right, we don't have to do anything now, since no one in his right mind would believe us if some moonbat in the Bush administration said he/she believed the Iranians were going to do what they've threatened to do.  Heh.  Fools.  They don't have WMD in Iran, and even if they did they certainly wouldn't use them because:

1. Islam is a religion of peace.  
   
   
2. The leaders in Iran are not crazy.  
   

Did I miss anything?

he might be the one raising the Mahdi army, which while not effective against us, could be used in a "command and control reorganization"

in Europe, Russia or China and not here or in Israel.

That way we can stand with some of the folks in this thread and say, "Wow, whodathunkit?"  And of course we would then go to the UN to get a resolution from the Security Council and have someone attempt to get a resolution thru the UN Human Rights Council.  The UNHRC resolution would of course blame the US and Israel, but hey, you can't have everything.

If the mullahs control who gets to run for president, and more then likely don't leave the results of the election to chance, then there is no reason to assume they aren't in control.  I would be really interested in how much autonomy (if any) the "president" has.

Clean up on Aisle 7? What scorpio did you dirty your knickers again?

But in general your point is well taken.

1.  "Brown"Alum05 makes it clear in his alias that he is from an Ivy League school and you are not.  Not only that but he speaks numerous languages, is well traveled, has.... So how dare an ignoramus like yourself question him?  It is the classic "unless you can discuss the details of quantum physics in three languages your opinion on the existence of God means nothing" argument.  I did love the "can you discuss...." part.  It is the height of condescension and arrogance.  
   
2.  Although it was President Ahmadinejad who made the statements, Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of a country that is thumbing its nose at its prior commitments to the United Nations, the IAEA and the rest of the world in regards to nuclear weapons, putting his country on a path of inevitable collision and destruction.  The Supreme Leader's country is not on a sane or rational course and if he hangs around in the command and control when the inevitable happens, he is neither sane nor rational.  
   
3.  Many lunatics in history were surrounded by sane and rational people.  In fact it was probably the norm.  Be it Lenin, Hitler or take your pick, I am sure there were people that knew better in their midst but because they were sane and rational played along for their own power and survival.  It does not mean the West is obligated to bow down in an act of suicide because there is some sort of rule that states you can never go to war with a country that is comprised of some sane and rational people at the top, even though your own survival is at stake.

I do not speak the languages, hold the credentialed degrees nor know the culture.  But if there are so many sane and rational people in Iran they will make a point of putting an end to Ahmadinejad's madness before someone else has to.  If they do not, then I do not believe they are all that sane and rational, at least not more so than the others we have had to deal with in the past.

The Democrats want to win elections.  Iran having nukes or not having nukes is of no concern to them, because Iran will only use nukes if Bush provokes them, will be their arguement.  The only remarks I've heard from any Democrat on Iraq have been to accuse the Bush administration of wasting time with multilateral diplomacy ("outsourcing" to Europe, they've called it).  Hillary has spoken very Kerryesque by saying if she were president this would all be done properly, without going into what she would do.  Woven into all of this is their "broken army" meme, that its all a moot point because our military can't handle Iran at this point anyway.

Also, they will said to be years away from a bomb, giving time for "Diplomacy to work".  Because, you see, any result can be achieved with diplomacy as long as you're patient enough.  It's sort of like how enough monkeys with typewriters will eventually write a novel.

i think we can open some doors with air power, and we can certainly hammer the daylights out of the air defenses, air force, army and navy. But I think to shut down the nuclear program will require ground forces.

My approach would be

• destroy the air defenses
  
• obliterate the air forces, army and navy
  
• hammer the nuclear sites to soften them up
  
• airlift strike forces into the sites to destroy everything they come into contact with
  
• lift the strike forces out and let the Iranians sort out the rubble.

and for mbecker, find that command and control facility where the mullahs live and turn it into a tomb.

So sorting through the melodrama of your post, the point I get is basically "There have been crazy muslims for 300 years, so we'll just have to learn to live with them being crazy with nuclear weapons".

No.

P.S. - regarding the Soviets, mutually assured destruction only works when the other side isn't a fanatical death cult.

You may have caught his reference to Daily Kos in his first post.  Referring to a minor point a person makes as a strawman so you don't have to address their main point is a big part of what goes on there.

But I don't believe the country has the will.  I'm not even sure Bush would politically survive launching a military strike against Iran.  It could be the tipping point.  The country is in the most surreal isolationist, defeatist, appeasement funk I have ever seen.  

OEF and OIF had large public support at the onset, this has little to none.  Now almost half the country believes Iraq was a big lie, gas prices have nothing to do with supply and demand much less the price of oil and Gitmo is a fascist concentration camp.  Stop for a second and seriously imagine what Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Hollywood, the MSM and the rest of the Democrat Left are going to do in response to a military strike against Iran.  Think about that hard.

Dealing with Iran militarily is inevitable.  The only question is will it happen before Israel gets nuked.  There is no doubt Iran will nuke Israel once they have the capability.  It's a win/win for them.  They want Israel wiped off the map and want the end all be all confrontation with the West.  The response to their nuking Israel is not a deterrent, as we were used to in the MAD days with the Soviets, but rather an incentive.  

I say think hard about the response of the Left because this time it will have to be dealt with.  We have been ignoring it thus far as it has built through OEF and OIF, but I am not sure that can continue if we deal with Iran in the manner it requires with the resulting violence that will probably take place on our own soil as a repercussion.  I believe there is a significant chance the Left will be part of that violence.  It may be worse than the 60s.  You know over half the Democrat Party is going to believe it's illegal and based on lies.  

The rest of your scenario is excellent too.

Assuming we're talking about Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) here and not Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) the reason why MAD doesn't apply to Iran is they want the end all be all confrontation, unlike the Soviets who simply wanted to do it with the rope we sold them while they lived and prospured.  

If Iran gets a nuclear capability, they will nuke Israel as soon as possible.  They get to wipe Israel "off the map" as they say and get their holy war with the West, a win/win in their book.  Unlike the atheist Soviets who had no intention of dying themselves, Iran gets to have its cake and eat it too.  

I just wanted our dear friend to lay off the poor strawmwen!!!!!! They work all day just to get insulted by bigots like him. Ahhh, the injusitice!!!! Ahhh, the pain!!!!!!!!! Ahhh, the suffering!!!!!!!!!!

Its people like him that are the reason society is like the way it is!!!

I hereby call for a sit-in!!!!! Yes, that'll show the racict sexist pigs in City Hall!!!! Down with Civilization!!!!!

That felt good;)

Ok. I'm just looking for some "dignified" input. (see the last questions on my original post). I'd appreciate hearing whether you agree/disagree or what you think. Rather than some snide remark like "clean up on aisle7". As if my post is something unclean. Maybe it is. Prove it. How about it? I'm just out here trying to make some sense of things, too, and welcome thoughtful comments or constructive criticism. So I'll apologize for my "snide comment" and look forward to hearing something from your thought process.

This is undoubtedly so:

Today opinion is turned against Iraq and the administration because we have three years of being told by the Democrats and the press that everything is wrong.

But I sense a seismic shift in the political landscape.  The Dems and MSM have painted themselves in a box with their endless anti-American rhetoric, and try as they may, they will not be able to stop this shift, its momentum or its right turn.

Against the back-drop of a potential Iranian nuclear threat, which also serves as a constant reminder that the Global War on Terror extends far beyond the caves of Afghanistan, the American public will soon be shocked into consciousness when, once again, vivid memories of the tragic events surrounding 9-11 are brought to the surface.

"For the majority of the American people, reality will surface as they remember exactly who, what, and why we are fighting, and they will most assuredly understand the implications of failure." - rbdwiggins

Much change will occur in the American psyche following the weekend of April 28th, 29th and 30th.  The political landscape will suddenly favor the GOP, and conventional wisdom will be turned up-side-down following the release of "United 93."

"I don't see this as knocking over a fire ant hill just because it's there.  It's more like killing a small termite colony before it can grow large enough to devour your house."

My, what an elequent illustration. And on the money. Excellent!

you would have intended to invade Iran in 1981, or failing that, how you would "flatten" it. Keep in mind the historical context AND the fact that the Soviets bordered Iran back then. You can't just go around screaming "flatten this, flatten that". Wars do have consquences, even "good" ones.

Also, define exactly how the Elder is a "spineless coward". Domestically, one can criticize, but as far as his foriegn policy goes, I have nothing but respect for the man. If you are still angry that we did not "flatten" Iraq, well you quite evidently hold a grudge a long time.

And a general tip: please combine sentences for readability and make sure you did not accidentally contradict yourself in your post. In some of your previous posts on other subjects, you seem to tackle to many subjects in too short a space.    

Mullahs Assured Destruction

There may be some truth in your premise in certain situations and carefully applied. But never when it concerns our safety or national interests.

1. The Iranian government is the primary and most overt sponsor of terror in the world to date, including finances, materials, and training. They give safe haven and support to every terrorist organization at the top of our list. They have publicly stated their desire to harm us in the past, and their President was directly involved in taking our diplomats hostage under the Peanut King's watch. No one on earth is more likely to INDIRECTLY ensure a first strike takes place on our soil and thus, in their minds, avoid our direct retaliation.
   
2. They have recently stated, and more recently reiterated, their intent to "wipe Israel of the face of the map". Israel is our direct (and most constant) ally in the region, and happens to be the only functioning democracy in the region as well.

In this particular situation, we do not have the luxury of playing aroung with your idea.

you can almost see the drool flying

from folks lips...amazing

God bless W

I, for some stupid reason, thought you said successor instead of predecessor. We are one on that subject now.

I will retract my initial hostile reaction towards your original post, and duly apologize for said reaction. However, you still must tell me how we were to "flatten" Iran in 1981 without it turning directly into a superpower conflict, or a mirror-image Soviet invasion of Afganistan.

Anyway, do you understand my tagline, or not?

3. Bush is Hitler
   
   
4. Bush will lie to get us into a war in Iran.

That's what you missed. Ahmadhi-Nejad's anti-Semitic ravings are merely for home consumption and would be solved if we would pressure Israel to offer just and reasonable concessions to the oppressed Palestinian People.

Did I miss anything?

...response to Tehran will be about as audible as the response of the feminazis to the liberation of women in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What makes you think "regional balance of power" (although you didn't elaborate exactly what you mean by that) will lead to stability?

I agree that a nuclear first strike would be an absolute disaster diplomatically, but between bunker busters and other munitions we have we may not be able to destroy every inch of these facilities but we could bury them under enough rubble that reconstitution would take years.  

We've worked for YEARS, shoveling money to the Russians to try to control the old Soviet arsenal.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

of your analogy is that the insane guy has used part of his salary and the use of his backyard to help finance and train people to kill other people, which they have.  Also, he says a certain neighbor has no right to exist and should be annihilated.

    Not the sort of guy I'd want to have a $1000 assault weapon and I bet the police or BATF would drop by for tea.

but I do give the Iranians credit for being able to calculate their capabilities.

Physics limits the penetration possible. Right now 30m of reinforced concrete is the max we've been able to penetrate even in laboratory conditions.

The Iranians have a factory that builds world class tunneling equipment and they've been tunneling like mad for over a decade.

And no, you can't bury them under enough rubble to deprive the Iranians of access. I lived in California in the early 80s and Hwy 1 had 300 YARDS of mud dumped on it as well as part of it sliding into the Pacific. It was open to traffic in less than two years. The Iranians are as industrious as we are and conventional weapons have nowhere near the ability to damage as does a California mudslide.

But compared to one who is well informed on the subject of war tactics, what I think matters little.

I apologize if you found the question offensive.

We have had our Munich, and the U.N. caved in just like Chamberlain and France did.

Seeing as the world did not learn from history the last time we are now doomed to repeat it.

It is our "1938" right now. And I suspect that it will go just like it did back in the 1930's here. Review history of that time and you will find that the people warning that we need to nip the situation in the bud are branded "drunken Imperialist warmongers", just like now. The press, academia, Hollywood and the "anti war" crowd are all allies and use rhetoric in 1938 that sounds eerily like the rhetoric they use today. Even the "anti war" rallies of 1938 and 2006 are being organized by some of the same people, aka American communists.

FDR was not the beloved President that history makes him out to be now. Go and read some of the stuff he was called and who was saying it and you will have a sense of deja vu. Change out the words "FDR" or "Churchill" for "W" or "Blair" and they will sound just like the rantings of our BDS suffering posters/commentators of today. The anti war crowd of 1938 tried to "sell" Germany as a "poor country being oppressed by the imperialsits", just like they are trying to sell the Islamofascists of today. They also turned a blind eye to the oppressive policies of the Nazi's just like they turn a blind eye to the oppressive policies of the Islamofascists now.

The average people in both Europe and the U.S. of the time had no desire to fight a war that "did not concern them", just like today. In the late 1930's we kept our army by ONE vote in congress. The Russians were playing their own game, just like now. They hoped to play the Germans agaisnt the western powers while they sat back and watched, then they would take out whoever was left standing.

So....

We are on the road to WWIII. Well, it really has already started but the big fighting is yet to come. I have what Einstein said about that going through my head right now and it is not a pleasnat thought. This needs to be nipped in the bud for if it isn't we will be in for centuries of hurt.

1.  Buckeye covers most of my rebuttle in a comment below called "But it's close".
   
2.  I'm not sure of your familiarity with the Iranian revolutionary governmental structure (to include the religious side).  The president is a mouthpiece of the supreme leader.  If you differ on this consider that the supreme leader (in fact the power elite of Iran) has said or done nothing to disagree with the comments or the proactive steps to obtain nuclear arms and provoke the west into a hot war.  They've signed off on the comments.  Unless you or BrownAlum have some evidence that the supreme leader is fighting the president on this raving loon policy of course.

For example, If a certain German official writes and enacts "the final solution" to exterminate millions of innocent people, and the supreme leader of the country makes no statements on the world stage to denounce this policy...

Well history lays the holocaust at the feet of Hitler.  And rightly so.  

of the caliber of people we have in the military these days, I am much reassured.

Good posts.

...destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities would be strengthening a weak regime.

A regime is not the same as the military capabilities of the nation.  The strength of a regime lies in how secure that regime is in it's own control and existence.  Destroying nuclear capabilities could very well make a regime stronger by decreasing the likelihood that regime can be replaced.  For example, if the population rallies around it in the face of an attack.

How's it blowing?

That's how long it took me to end that trolling. I know the signup process alone took longer than that. Feel good now?

if they have created an entirely redundant system then its harder. That being said I'd be very surprised if every production  component is duplicated.

But even then it is still a serial process and it is unlikely that they have placed all of the components of production in one place. If they haven't then taking out one may have significant impact on their capability even if we don't get them all. And obviously if they have then they are not dispersed afterall.

Obviously the value of intel is very high and our agencies have not served us well. The difference between this and pre-war Iraq is that the strategic intel in the Iraq case appears to have been, if not wrong, certainly unreliable; our agencies were unable to tell us the Iraq intent. In the case of Iran they have told us the strategic part; they are enriching uranium and most likely with the intent of producing weapons. In order to neutralize it we need tactical intel.

The warmongering at RedState.com's getting out of hand.

I second that.  The flavor of the pro-war posts is getting a bit ridiculous.  If anyone disagrees, call them names and insult them.  Not a whole lot different that many liberals.  I just hope this kind of thing doesn't continue.  I can find other sites if I want an echo chamber.

that there is an incredible amount of arrogance in on the one hand complaining about name calling and insults directed at people who agree with you and in the same wheezy breath accusing those who disagree with you of warmongering.

If you don't like what you read: door, butt, way out.

As long as we continue to consider Iran in historical context, ie. they are just another country out there with the drums beating and the chests being thumped by the latest garden variety leader "just trying to rally the troops at home and build a little national self-pride" you are right.  It is israel's problem, it is Europe's problem...whoever's problem it is we are most reassuringly to believe it is definitely NOT our problem...ok-yawn, stretch, pack it in and call it a day...

Ooops, wait a sec, yeah-this just in-THESE guys believe in a God that wants to see races and religions DESTROYED in deference to THEM ruling the world.  Still only Israel's and Europe's problem?

Well, as they build their technology and skill and resources and as they disperse these weapons and technologies to their nut-jub cohorts in, say Malaysia, India, Pakistan...hmmm, still not on our soil right?

So when they expand these nukes and other horrible weapons to, say, Venezuala or Cuba, or perhaps Canada....THEN will you think them having nukes and other WMDs may be problematic?  Perhaps I am just a whackjob, but I believe they will share their wealth and their resources with those who would see Christianity and Judaism destroyed along with any other non-radical-Islam faiths, and will covertly provide them with all they need to execute their plans for death, destruction, and conquest.

Maybe it's just me, and I need counseling and prozac...

questionable snark that may be a possible thoughtcrime, better blow him away to be sure.  Are you that insecure?

Or maybe he was just calling out bogus debating tactics on the part of one of the parties above, attempting to change the subject to FDR's domestic policies when the debate in question was about whether eliminating most of the Iran high command as part of a pre-emptive strike was a good idea.

heads up.

You've been registered less than two weeks. You've posted nothing to date that leads one to believe you can distinguish your butt from a hot rock.

Maybe you should devote just a bit more time to trying to develop crediblity rather than chastising others.

the Brown dude made an extremely cogent and well-thought out post only to have people accuse him of not being "conservative" enoguh because there's an FDR quote in his sig.  Someone makes a snarky comment about the pathetic rebuttal and is threatened with eviction?  People in the same thread were proposing nuking american politicians, in jest, I'm sure, but I'd like to see thoughtful posting encouraged on every blog.  

As far as being registered 2 weeks, I have a lengthy comment history on tacitus if you feel the need to peruse it.  I'm polite and generally post things that I've thought through a little bit.  The last comment was a shot from the hip but I can't stand seeing lengthy and fact-filled comments discarded out of hand because it's much easier to hate.

In regards to the original diary, I'll just say, slow down man, war isn't that great that we should all be excited about it.  Plus, I don't know how long it takes to mobilize a battle group and sail it to the gulf, but we're probably at least several months to a year away from war with Iran for purely logistical reasons.  Let alone a host of other strategic reasons why it would be good to wait 2-3 years before going in.  We have time here, we can play it smart.  And if we go in, no nation-building, we trash the nuke facilities and get out.  It doesn't even take much of a ground invasion, we can do all kinds of airborne insertion.  And tactical nukes against Iran?  Is this just a "I'm more hardcore than you" rhetorical flourish?  Do you really think that should be an option with the situation as it stands now?  It would be marginally harder to do with convention weapons, so what?  If we can do it without nukes, we should.

...it will not be nipped in the bud.

People are making the same mistakes that Chamberlain and Deladier made at Munich. The Western Democracies are being painted as the bad guys. It will come to atomic war.

We will win, but not before millions have been slaughtered. It will not have had to have happened, either.

That "dude" also made "well-thought out" points about Khomeini being sane and reasonable. So sure I did not necessarily utilize all the limited tact I have at my disposal. A new user (who has exactly same user name at Daily Kos) should probably post some "well-thought out" posts before replying to me in that fashion.

It's not that I am offended for him offering me that interesting factoid about Reagan. I am not. It's just that others here care about kos users acting up.

Hey, that neighbor you are talking about is Burger King in my example. However I am not that great at analogies :) Thank you for the addition.

"But" the CCCP was a paper tiger. (Of course we didn't exactly know that then-true) On the verge of colapse. We could have negotiated them a warm water port out of the deal and they'd have backed off. Ah! hindsight is 20/20. Don't get me wrong I love Reagan. I just keep thinking that if we'd done more back then, our valiant young soldiers wouldn't be in the situation they're in now. I do feel that the consequences then would not have been as pressurized as they are now. We had every right to retaliate for the destruction of our embassy. Lots of precedent for that. Anyway, its water under the bridge. Scorpio, I'm sure we probably agree on more than what we disagree on. Thanks for your input. Later.

bit of advice.

No one cares about your history at tacitus and your history there is hardly probative of anything.

As to the rest, try reading. I know it is hard and time consuming, but I've always found that it enhances conversation. Having both written and read the origninal post I can tell you with 100% certainty there is no excitement in it.

As to the rest of your assertions, they just go to prove my assessment of your posts here. An "airborne insertion"? You sound like Clinton wanting to have "ninjas" rappel into Afghanistan after bin Laden.

None of this addresses the core problem. You don't have the right to make corrections to anyone here unless and until you demonstrate a helluva lot more knowledge that anything you've posted to date indicates is likely.

Newt Gingrich is a huge admirer of FDR. Is he not conservative?

Why not? GW keeps telling us that the world has changed. Why do we keep up the old talk of negotiations = appeasement? Isn't that a pre-9/11 mentality? Or are we now too weak to talk? Perhaps so, after general ineptitude, militarily and diplomatically, of this administration has stripped us of any credibile voice.  

about the administration but this post, fresh from the Talking-Point-o-Matic™, certainly strips you of a "credibile" voice, among other things.

on the pile?

Along wtih a huge number of airstrikes, depends on the goal.  If the goal is to set back nuclear development by a decade or so, then we could destroy their navy, air force, air defenses, and bring in most of the 101st and 82nd to make sure those hardened targets are destroyed.  Hardly a handful of ninjas.  No rappelling, those choppers will be landing, dropping jeeps and tanks, etc.  Then when the mission's over, they get out.  Keep it kinetic, don't get bogged down in rebuilding villages and settling feuds over someone's cousin's wife.  If the goal is regime change and occupation, then we need a draft and 2 million or so GIs inside Iran.  It's a big country.  Anything in between is wishful thinking and crazy talk.  Especially an invasion of Khuzestan.  Didn't Saddam try that once?  We either have an exit strategy or we don't... in regards to Iran, I'd say keep the mission short and sweet, we're already rebuilding 2 countries on either side of them.  You're the one who brought up my commenting history as if it made a huge difference in what I had to say.  

Your original post, I'll admit, didn't have too much excitement in it.  I was more reacting to various other commenters and a general feel I've gotten from this website.  So sorry for that.  My point is simply that war with Iran is not a foregone conclusion quite yet and even if it is, it is more than 1 year away at the least.  

destroy every military weapon and site and leave. When the more "conservative" leaders replace the dead ones, wait until they figure out how to string a bow and go back and kill them too. Sooner or later only the "liberal" Iranian peaceniks will be left, right?

Lebanon, Palestine, Isreal.

That would be three.

Oh, that's right I forgot: you don't want to count Hezbollah or Hamas because they aren't in the direct Iranian chain of command. They're just primarily funded and controlled by the Iranians.

Right. Like our possessing them detered India, Pakistan, North Korea, and now Iran.

Winning a war is not simply possessing the means to destroy your enemy, it is also possessing the will. The Iranians calculate that while we have the means, we don't have the will. The only question after that is: Are they right?

about honking off the world? Isn't it about time the world got worried about honking off the Americans?!

Movie scene: Secret diplomatic negotiations

Russian Amdassador to his close Iranian friend: But you have to stop this madness! Do you not know that if you continue on this uranium enrichment path, those crazy Americans will turn your whole country into a sheet of glass?! Do you think they care if the European countries collapse economically? It just gives them the chance to buy old real estate cheap?

Iranian Diplomat: Death to Isreal!

RA: That's it! We're cutting off all support and diplomatic relations. You've got two weeks to kill this program or we send in the KGB!

for five years, you're going after the wrong components. Forget the centrifuges and the techno-gizmos: Take out the engineers who build the stuff. Takes more than twenty years to rebuild those.

can no longer be an issue.  Those Generals, thankfully, have retired and are now doing book tours.  So flawless military execution shouldn't be a problem.

And by the way, the Administration never had a credible voice.  That's because the people who define "credible voice" work at ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT.  Find a new bloggyhorse to whip.

Yes on the right.

No on the left.

half a dozen countries in a week.  It's just a matter of money, and the Mullahs got the moola.

the screams from the left if we started targetting Iranian engineers. We can't do that, we are better than that blah blah blah

They have plenty of troops there right now. They just aren't wearing the uniform.

If we started listening into their phone conversations without a warrant.

We should, and will, attack Iran in early spring, 2007, for the following reasons:

1.  We can and should give diplomacy a chance (although it is 99% sure to fail).
   
2.  We can't wait longer than that, because they will probably have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb soon thereafter.
   
3.  We can't (politically speaking) attack before the 2006 election.
   
4.  We can't (politically speaking) attack too close to the 2008 election.
   
5.  We can't risk leaving this problem to a President Hillary.

Only remaining question is, should we do an all-out attack with boots on the ground and regime change, or a more limited attack just on their nuclear program.  That's a question for people higher than my pay grade (and intelligence).  Both options have substantial risks, and it is probably impossible to fully evaluate them.  So in the end, we must trust our President to make the right decision (between these two options) and support him once he does.

Spring 2007.

Since Ahmed-Jihad has been threatening Israel so much, I wonder what the Administration has been doing to make sure those Patriots (anti-missile missiles) are in good working order in Israel.

The Israelis might have more immediate problems such as a Hamas government nearby, and a new, untested Prime Minister, but they need to be thinking about what to do if Iranian missiles start coming in...

We are faced with a difficult military situation now (most of it from the political home front situation), and we will have a far worse situation later if we wait. No matter how we slice it, it is going to be bad. The only thing affecting the outcome is the Democratic position and will it be a political football here at home. We can do it militarily, even on our own, without allied help, the question is if the Democrats and public opinion will make the hard choice and be willing to deal with those tough choices and stick to them.

I am from the "pull the band-aid fast" school of thought, to get the pain over with quickly. The end result will be worth it in this situation (removal of the last major bastion of terrorism). Doing it sooner, rather than later, will also save us some considerable problems, and be less costly in expendatures (both in personnel and material resources) in the long run.

The sad part is that most of the pain will be self inflicted on the home political front.