U.S.To Go Stag Against Iran

[Nbadan]

http://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pagegen/images/2000002/joan21.jpg
Dr. Strange-love


Bolton: Unanimity not necessary on Iran
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer


VIENNA, Austria - Iran remained defiant Thursday as a U.N. deadline arrived for it to halt uranium enrichment, and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said unanimity among the Security Council was not needed to take action against Tehran.

Key European nations will meet with Iran in September in a last-ditch effort to seek a negotiated solution to the standoff over Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, a senior U.N. diplomat said Thursday.

President Bush said "there must be consequences" for Iran, adding that the war between Tehran-backed Hezbollah militants and Israel demonstrated that "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran."

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a report obtained by The Associated Press that Iran shows no signs of freezing enrichment, adding that Tehran started work on a new batch Aug. 24.

The confidential IAEA report will be given to its 35-nation board. That is expected to trigger U.N. Security Council members — by mid-September — to begin considering economic or political sanctions.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear)

Bolton will claim that the trigger is the security council deadline that passed today, and that if Iran doesn't comply immediately that no more will be needed for the US to act on the security council deadline, no matter what the UN might say about further conditions.

The US demanded that Iran cede the primary point before negotiations begin, which Iran very rightly refused to do -- if they ceded that point, there would be no purpose to any further negotiations. Obviously, the US is not interested in negotiations. PNAC wants its war.

[01Snake]

I don't see the US taking military action against Iran.

[boutons_]

dubya has talked the big talk on Iran.

With the 2006 election in 2 months, let's see if he (actually, dickhead and Rove) now thinks it's time to bomb Iran as yet-another Repug election tactic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083000681.html

"President Bush said today there "must be consequences" for Iran's "defiance and delay" in responding to U.N. demands it stop enriching uranium."

The Repugs are looking weak in several key races. Both houses are in play.

Come on, dubya, now's the time for some election shock-and-awe. God elected you for this moment.

[Extra Stout]

An airstrike on Iran at this time would be stupid and counterproductive to U.S. interests.

I'm not saying that Bush won't do it, but rather that it would be stupid.

[smeagol]

i bet the dimm-o-craps hope that bush bombs iran
Ahh . . . you miss the old fellow!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Y'all are dumbasses, it will be Israel doing the bombing.

[scott]

Y'all are dumbasses, it will be Israel doing the bombing.

Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran giving every country in the middle east the excuse to go to war with Israel and inevitably dragging the US into a bigger ME war likely to be an even bigger clusterfuck than things are now over there?

At least we are getting all of the dumb ideas out in the open.

[RandomGuy]

I don't see the US taking military action against Iran.

This administration wants to do exactly that.

I think it has passed the line of incompetence and is nearing the line of just plain crazy. It is really starting to scare me how reckless they are.

[RandomGuy]

Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran giving every country in the middle east the excuse to go to war with Israel and inevitably dragging the US into a bigger ME war likely to be an even bigger clusterfuck than things are now over there?

At least we are getting all of the dumb ideas out in the open.

Yuppers. This adminsitrations blunder in Iraq has tied our hands when it comes to Iran.

Ooops.

:depressed

[boutons_]

"nearing the line of just plain crazy."

Esp dickhead. There's nobody in the Admin with enough weight to counter this lying, murderous, power-hungry mother-fucker.

[101A]

I don't think we'll bomb Iran - unless we're softening them up for an all out invasion - which, considering there military, and alliances in the ME, we won't do with the current size & state of our military.

Israel might; and they might have to. Iran's "leader" has stated his goal to wipe Israel off the map; and that he'd be willing to sacrifice 1/2 of his country to do so. He probably means it. Israel truly cannot afford for that guy to have "the bomb".

[Extra Stout]

This administration wants to do exactly that.

I think it has passed the line of incompetence and is nearing the line of just plain crazy. It is really starting to scare me how reckless they are.

Atlantic Monthly did a war-games study recently that determined the likelihood of success of airstrikes against Iran to neutralize their nuclear capacity. The study showed that Iran has been preparing for U.S./Israeli strikes for at least a decade. Airstrikes alone won't take out Iran's nukes. They have heavy missile defenses along their entire perimeter. Many of their facilities are buried deep underground, where only tactical nuclear weapons ("bunker-busters") would have any possibility of success.

The Iranian nuclear program would survive an American/Israeli air campaign. There would be absolutely no benefit to American interests, only grevious harm. All this would do is further elevate the prestige and influence of Iran in the region. The Shia in Iraq, upon whom whatever fleeting hope of stability in that country we depend, would side with Iran, causing a general uprising against the U.S. presence. This would solidify the "Shia Crescent" from Tehran to Damascus. Iran would still have the ability within five to ten years to launch a strike against Israel. The only difference would be that rather than launching from the Zagros, they would be able to stroll right up to the Israeli border with Syria and/or Lebanon.

If the threat in Iran so so untenable that we must act, then we have to do it right. And "right" means a big-ass invasion with 1 million+ troops. And a big-ass invasion with 1 million+ means a draft. If the President can't build a case for that, then either the threat isn't big enough, or he's simply not an effective enough leader. We cannot do this half-ass, or we will accelerate the flucht nach vor to a Middle East where Iran is the hegemon, armed with nuclear weapons, surrounded by sympathetic Islamist regimes bent upon the destruction of Israel and on the achievement of pre-eminence over the West.

And if there is not enough justification for an all-out invasion, then we keep working through the UN, however frustrating and useless that might seem. And if we haven't begun teaching half the CIA to speak Persian, we get a f***ing move-on. The Iranian economy has been devastated by this nuclear stand-off. They can't keep this up forever. It is the standoff against Bush which is rallying the Iranian people behind a government that otherwise would be weak.

This s*** is getting serious. We made a huge strategical error in Iraq. We're contemplating a huge strategic error in Iran. If we keep this up, we'll get to a point where the forces of Islamism might actually win.

[101A]

Atlantic Monthly did a war-games study recently that determined the likelihood of success of airstrikes against Iran to neutralize their nuclear capacity. The study showed that Iran has been preparing for U.S./Israeli strikes for at least a decade. Airstrikes alone won't take out Iran's nukes. They have heavy missile defenses along their entire perimeter. Many of their facilities are buried deep underground, where only tactical nuclear weapons ("bunker-busters") would have any possibility of success.

The Iranian nuclear program would survive an American/Israeli air campaign. There would be absolutely no benefit to American interests, only grevious harm. All this would do is further elevate the prestige and influence of Iran in the region. The Shia in Iraq, upon whom whatever fleeting hope of stability in that country we depend, would side with Iran, causing a general uprising against the U.S. presence. This would solidify the "Shia Crescent" from Tehran to Damascus. Iran would still have the ability within five to ten years to launch a strike against Israel. The only difference would be that rather than launching from the Zagros, they would be able to stroll right up to the Israeli border with Syria and/or Lebanon.

If the threat in Iran so so untenable that we must act, then we have to do it right. And "right" means a big-ass invasion with 1 million+ troops. And a big-ass invasion with 1 million+ means a draft. If the President can't build a case for that, then either the threat isn't big enough, or he's simply not an effective enough leader. We cannot do this half-ass, or we will accelerate the flucht nach vor to a Middle East where Iran is the hegemon, armed with nuclear weapons, surrounded by sympathetic Islamist regimes bent upon the destruction of Israel and on the achievement of pre-eminence over the West.

And if there is not enough justification for an all-out invasion, then we keep working through the UN, however frustrating and useless that might seem. And if we haven't begun teaching half the CIA to speak Persian, we get a f***ing move-on. The Iranian economy has been devastated by this nuclear stand-off. They can't keep this up forever. It is the standoff against Bush which is rallying the Iranian people behind a government that otherwise would be weak.

This s*** is getting serious. We made a huge strategical error in Iraq. We're contemplating a huge strategic error in Iran. If we keep this up, we'll get to a point where the forces of Islamism might actually win.


Agree completely; only question I have is how much we might be contemplating a "strategic error" in Iran. I haven't seen anything official that indicates we are going to do something half-assed, or invade at all.

This, for sure, is true: Iran is pulling the strings right about now, and have been for a while; undoubtedly supporting the insurgency in Iraq (ostensibly backing the Sunnis for the time being because it serves there interest), at the same time funding the private Hezbollah type militias; keeping ties to Russia & China.

If this ain't WWIII yet, the sides are certainly being divied up.

[boutons_]

"to do something half-assed,"

you mean like the phony Iraq war? under-manned, under-equipped, under-planned, mis-under-stood, under-managed, totally half-assed.

[101A]

"to do something half-assed,"

you mean like the phony Iraq war? under-manned, under-equipped, under-planned, mis-under-stood, under-managed, totally half-assed.

I, as opposed to you, think the administration has learned from this. They won't hit Iran unless they can hit really, really hard.

The good news is, w/in the next 26 months, one of will be able to say "I told you so".

[boutons_]

"the administration has learned from this."

no, they think they've done Iraq just right (if they believe their own press releases), and if they could, they'd march into Iran also.

[101A]

"the administration has learned from this."

no, they think they've done Iraq just right (if they believe their own press releases),

because politicians are so fond of Mea Culpas

:rolleyes

When did Clinton finally own up to his transgressions with Ms. Lewinski? Oh, thats right - right after they found his semen on one of her dresses!

[DarkReign]

When did Clinton finally own up to his transgressions with Ms. Lewinski? Oh, thats right - right after they found his semen on one of her dresses!

I understand the analogy completely, but you know whats coming...

[boutons_]

"Clinton finally own up to his transgressions with Ms. Lewinski?"

sexual relations between consulting adults is none of anybody else's business, esp not the government's.

[Extra Stout]

"Clinton finally own up to his transgressions with Ms. Lewinski?"

sexual relations between consulting adults is none of anybody else's business, esp not the government's.
101A, I don't think boutons is likely to grasp your point. There are certain phrases that trigger his auto-retort reflex.

[boutons_]

I got the point, asshole.

The Repugs' incompetence in conducting state affairs like a fucking war is vastly more important and deadly than a president getting a blow job, but bringing Clinton's sex life up now and forever is key tactic of Repugs/red-staters/conservatives who for some reason don't have their sex lives delved into by the government.

[Extra Stout]

I got the point, asshole.

The Repugs' incompetence in conducting state affairs like a fucking war is vastly more important and deadly than a president getting a blow job, but bringing Clinton's sex life up now and forever is key tactic of Repugs/red-staters/conservatives who for some reason don't have their sex lives delved into by the government.
No, you didn't get the point at all. You went on auto-retort. As soon as he posted it, I thought, "The point will go completely over boutons' head and he will post something about 'repug lies consenting adults sex.'"

The point is that politicians will never admit they screwed up unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. So, though the Bushies will never admit they screwed up in Iraq, it doesn't they think they've done Iraq "just right."

[clambake]

I think republicans are in dire need of a blowjob.

The idea that this administration is planning any stategy on Iran is chilling.

[RandomGuy]

I, as opposed to you, think the administration has learned from this. They won't hit Iran unless they can hit really, really hard.

The good news is, w/in the next 26 months, one of will be able to say "I told you so".

I would say even airstrikes, even a tactical nuke or two would be "half-assed".

"really, really hard" would STILL be a US loss.

Diplomacy is the ONLY solution.

In this case I would also point once again to the author whose work I quoted. He is describing a substantial faction within the administration who seem to favor military action, even now. Does this indicate that the administration has REALLY learned from Iraq?

[RandomGuy]

One has to structure any diplomatic solution to the point where there is no way that the Iranian government can use nationalism to make us into the bad guy.

You want this government to fall?

Give them aid and integrate them into the world community. If the aid is siphoned off by corrupt assholes, so much the better. The Iranians will realize their government for what it is that much faster.

Isolation does nothing but strengthen totalitarian regimes grip on their people, because it ignores the power of nationalism.

[boutons_]

"You want this government to fall?"

The collapse of oil prices in the mid/late 80s as the world adjusted its consumption to the Iranian oil shock caused the loss of many $Bs of hard currency for the Russians, who could no longer finance their military operations in Afghanistan and in the Red bloc.

In comparison, $70+ oil is pumping $4B/month into Iran, which the mullahs use to buy the support of the people with subsidies for damn near everything (gasoline at 34 cents/gallon, bread, etc, etc, etc).

If we could get the price of oil down significantly, Iran would not have the suplus $Bs to buy their poplulace's support and finance all kinds of terrorism. btw, it would also cut the revenues to Russia, not exactly our closest ally.

[Extra Stout]

"You want this government to fall?"

The collapse of oil prices in the mid/late 80s as the world adjusted its consumption to the Iranian oil shock caused the loss of many $Bs of hard currency for the Russians, who could no longer finance their military operations in Afghanistan and in the Red bloc.

In comparison, $70+ oil is pumping $4B/month into Iran, which the mullahs use to buy the support of the people with subsidies for damn near everything (gasoline at 34 cents/gallon, bread, etc, etc, etc).

If we could get the price of oil down significantly, Iran would not have the suplus $Bs to buy their poplulace's support and finance all kinds of terrorism. btw, it would also cut the revenues to Russia, not exactly our closest ally.
Even with $70 oil, the economy in Iran is garbage. All the money goes into government-run industries run by a small cabal of mullah cronies.

Private businesses run by everyday Iranians are being run into the ground.

[boutons_]

"Even with $70 oil, the economy in Iran is garbage"

exactly, with oil at 50 or less, the garbage will become evident, the subsidies will be become unsustainable, and Iran ripe for another revolution, that might be more friendly, and at least it would keep Iran pre-occupied internally vs now.

[101A]

I would say even airstrikes, even a tactical nuke or two would be "half-assed".

"really, really hard" would STILL be a US loss.

Diplomacy is the ONLY solution.

In this case I would also point once again to the author whose work I quoted. He is describing a substantial faction within the administration who seem to favor military action, even now. Does this indicate that the administration has REALLY learned from Iraq?

"Really, Really Hard", IMO would mean a massive strike, as someone here mentioned (1 million plus troops), a draft; real sacrifice at home - essentially if we go at Iran, we have to be prepared to go all the way at Iran & everybody else that steps into the fray at that point (WWIII).

Diplomacy could work as you define it; be nice, let the leadership be shown for what they are (war mongering, sabre rattling, self-interested "islamafascists") - but time is of the essence; with reports that Iran could have nukes a year from now (of course if the climate in the adminstration is as your author suggests, those reports might just be convenient). Your scenario doesn't seem to have time to come to fruition.

Are you confident that Ackmadenajad (sp) won't just blow the crap out of Israel 25 minutes after that sucker is operational? I think he might - based on what he is saying. Unfortunately you cannot reason with the unreasonable (got that out of a parenting-help book).

Maybe war between the West & the Islamic Jihadists is simply inevitible, and we ought to get on with it. (depressing, but reading this and a couple of other threads, as well as watching the news, one could easily come to that conclusion)

[Extra Stout]

Are you confident that Ackmadenajad (sp) won't just blow the crap out of Israel 25 minutes after that sucker is operational? I think he might - based on what he is saying. Unfortunately you cannot reason with the unreasonable (got that out of a parenting-help book).

Maybe war between the West & the Islamic Jihadists is simply inevitible, and we ought to get on with it. (depressing, but reading this and a couple of other threads, as well as watching the news, one could easily come to that conclusion)
Don't ask yourself what you think Ahmadinejad will do. He doesn't have the authority to launch any attack.

Do a little research on Ali Khameini and ask yourself what you think his endgame is.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I got the point, asshole.

The Repugs' incompetence in conducting state affairs like a fucking war is vastly more important and deadly than a president getting a blow job, but bringing Clinton's sex life up now and forever is key tactic of Repugs/red-staters/conservatives who for some reason don't have their sex lives delved into by the government.

You've got no problems calling Bush a liar, but can't seem to make the connection between a married man lying under oath about an affair. Don't they teach you anything in junior high croutons, or are you in the class that is still learning to color inside the lines?

[Extra Stout]

You've got no problems calling Bush a liar, but can't seem to make the connection between a married man lying under oath about an affair. Don't they teach you anything in junior high croutons, or are you in the class that is still learning to color inside the lines?
*Sigh*

OK, 101A, in the future, just avoid mentioning Clinton at all, lest threads self-hijack.

[austinfan]

Iran wants to be the main player in the ME. They don't want to be blown to oblivion, which is what would happen if they dropped a nuclear bomb on Israel (or the U.S.). So it's against their interests to do that.

But to be the big player, they have to earn their cred by showing they can stand up to the US, and to do that they're playing a cat and mouse game to see just how far they can push us, knowing that we're militarily strapped in Iraq, knowing that our economy is so oil-dependent. So they have more room to play this game, because there's not a whole heck of a lot we can do without causing harm to ourselves by outright attacking them and they know it.

Plus they've got Russia supporting them, and China is one of their biggest customers. You think China's gonna let anything happen to one of their main supply lines?

[101A]

*Sigh*

OK, 101A, in the future, just avoid mentioning Clinton at all, lest threads self-hijack.


Already came to that conclusion. Now doing my homework you assigned...

[Extra Stout]

I can't decide whether Iran's endgame is a suicidal attack on Israel, or regional hegemony. Rational thought would dictate the latter, but how can I be sure I can depend upon Muslim fundamentalists to use rational thought when in the U.S., far less wacky Christian fundamentalists so obviously do not.

If Iran is just aiming for deterrence, then an attack is the last thing we want to do. Our aim should be to help rot out the Islamic Republic from underneath, so that the fervently pro-America Iranian people gain self-determination. At worst, long-term we'd have another France.

[RandomGuy]

"Really, Really Hard", IMO would mean a massive strike, as someone here mentioned (1 million plus troops), a draft; real sacrifice at home - essentially if we go at Iran, we have to be prepared to go all the way at Iran & everybody else that steps into the fray at that point (WWIII).

That would still be a net loss to us, in my opinion.


Diplomacy could work as you define it; be nice, let the leadership be shown for what they are (war mongering, sabre rattling, self-interested "islamafascists") - but time is of the essence; with reports that Iran could have nukes a year from now (of course if the climate in the adminstration is as your author suggests, those reports might just be convenient). Your scenario doesn't seem to have time to come to fruition.

Actually it does. We know MUCH more about Irans nuclear capabilities, due to IAEA inspections. We also know that the pace of progress is fairly slow. They have taken a LONG time to get from nothing to where they are now and will take a similar time to get a working bomb. Time is on our side.

It will NOT be a year from now or even two years, barring a massive ramp up.


Are you confident that Ackmadenajad (sp) won't just blow the crap out of Israel 25 minutes after that sucker is operational? I think he might - based on what he is saying. Unfortunately you cannot reason with the unreasonable (got that out of a parenting-help book).

Amedinijhad is not *the* Iranian government. As much as he would like to do something there are other factors that would prevent such usage, even IF they had a bomb.


Maybe war between the West & the Islamic Jihadists is simply inevitible, and we ought to get on with it. (depressing, but reading this and a couple of other threads, as well as watching the news, one could easily come to that conclusion)

It is not exactly West versus Islam. Remember that as China and India get more into global integration, they would have more to lose from "rogue" nations as well.

Imagine a war fought between Iran on one side, the US, China, and India on the other.

You want a million troops, you got it easily.

Islam or even radical Islam isn't even the enemy.

Nationalism is. If radical Islam gives satisfaction to nationalist forces that other methods haven't, then that is what the "man on the street" will turn to.

[101A]

Don't ask yourself what you think Ahmadinejad will do. He doesn't have the authority to launch any attack.

Do a little research on Ali Khameini and ask yourself what you think his endgame is.


Biography of Ali Khameini (from his "Supreme Leader" Website (http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/index.php?p=bio)

Dude wants to rule the world, that we're in the middle of Islamic Revolution. We are "the enemy", and as far as I can tell, regardless of who is in power here, we are always, "the enemy". Doesn't talk about negotiating; just says we're all (yes, you too Boutons and Dan) materialistic and evil (specifically mentions how evil it is to NOT base your government on religion). Doesn't really hate us, so much as considers us sub-Islam; and ultimately, doomed to fall to the revolution.

Based on looking at his website, and understanding his goals, his is EXACTLY trying to weaken our reputation throughout the world, stretch us thin, let us argue ourselves silly (which he also thinks is funny as shit) and bide himself time (patience is a big deal with this guy), until he can fulfill his destiny and keep the Islamic Revolution going and growing.

Diplomacy may work in the short term, if it suits his goals; otherwise if we make some kind of overture like Random Guy is suggesting, he'll probably just fund some terrorist attrocity, let us figure out he did it, claim innocence and a framing by the US (hell if most people in the world now believe Bush had some hand in 9/11 - he certainly could blame lesser things on us), and put our leaders in a position of either continuing to do business with someone who is being a terrorist and flaunting it, or again, being right back where we are now.

After reading HIS OWN website; we need to start building up and getting ready to hit this guy: HARD. He CANNOT get a bomb.

[101A]

Here's the Supreme Leaders quote about the recent war between Hezbollah & Israel:


Your wronged jihad disclosed the enemy and unveiled its real face. The callous carnage of civilian people, shedding blood of innocent children and defenseless women, the Qana incident and many similar examples, demolishing thousands of houses and displacing thousands of families, destroying infrastructure in a significant part of Lebanon, and similar atrocities unveiled the real face of the American authorities and certain western states as well as the ugly and hateful face of the Zionist regime.

Please note: the only country mentioned by name is ours, and listed even before "Zionist Regime".

[RandomGuy]

Honestly, I think the Israelis shot themselves in the foot when they used cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs are used against massed troop formations, not guerillas.

Dumbasses.

[RandomGuy]

Based on looking at his website, and understanding his goals, his is EXACTLY trying to weaken our reputation throughout the world, stretch us thin, let us argue ourselves silly (which he also thinks is funny as shit) and bide himself time (patience is a big deal with this guy), until he can fulfill his destiny and keep the Islamic Revolution going and growing.

Diplomacy may work in the short term, if it suits his goals; otherwise if we make some kind of overture like Random Guy is suggesting, he'll probably just fund some terrorist attrocity, let us figure out he did it, claim innocence and a framing by the US (hell if most people in the world now believe Bush had some hand in 9/11 - he certainly could blame lesser things on us), and put our leaders in a position of either continuing to do business with someone who is being a terrorist and flaunting it, or again, being right back where we are now.

After reading HIS OWN website; we need to start building up and getting ready to hit this guy: HARD. He CANNOT get a bomb.

The iranian government is not loved by its people. Western culture is.

The hardliners of 1979 are dying off as surely as the Chinese hardliners of 1949 did and are.

Once again, time is on our side.

Iran can have all the bombs they can build in the limited amount of time this government has left.

All we have to do is not give them incentive to accelerate development, and weaken their government by actually dealing with it.

[RandomGuy]

You have, by far, overestimated the threat posed by Iran to the US, just as Bush did Iraq.

[101A]

Honestly, I think the Israelis shot themselves in the foot when they used cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs are used against massed troop formations, not guerillas.

Dumbasses.


It's actually a beutiful strategy Iran is using; they just sit back & wait for us or Israel to do something, anything dumb; they jump on that work their own people into a frenzy, and let our media (and Boutons) beat the crap out of whoever on "our" side made the error.

Then the Iranians talk an little sh!, and start waiting again...

[101A]

You have, by far, overestimated the threat posed by Iran to the US, just as Bush did Iraq.

I think you might be underestimating a dictator's ability to hold onto power. He controls the military, the media, and the government. If it's in his best interest to foment dislike for the United States, regardless of how the US is actually behaving, he will.

[101A]

I don't think Iran poses a threat to the US right now, but they are shrewdly building alliances around the world.

[101A]

The iranian government is not loved by its people. Western culture is.

The hardliners of 1979 are dying off as surely as the Chinese hardliners of 1949 did and are.

Once again, time is on our side.

Iran can have all the bombs they can build in the limited amount of time this government has left.

All we have to do is not give them incentive to accelerate development, and weaken their government by actually dealing with it.

Hate to bring up a WWII analogy (get chastised for it), but Hitler got less than 40% of the vote. His was not a particularly popular position (especially with those over 30) in Germany. Didn't stop him

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If Iran is just aiming for deterrence, then an attack is the last thing we want to do. Our aim should be to help rot out the Islamic Republic from underneath, so that the fervently pro-America Iranian people gain self-determination. At worst, long-term we'd have another France.

Good take, Stout.

I still don't think that us or Israel will do anything until they reach of a point of no return, and then it will be the Israelis doing the dirty work.

[BeerIsGood!]

I think you might be underestimating a dictator's ability to hold onto power. He controls the military, the media, and the government. If it's in his best interest to foment dislike for the United States, regardless of how the US is actually behaving, he will.
Since the Iranian people are completely oppressed by their government it seems the best course of action at this point is to work behind the scenes to empower the people to take on their government. The administrations main stance should be one of - "Iranian people - we are not against you. We would like to help you end the years of oppression you have been under." - or something to that effect. If the Iranians can secretly fund and fuel terrorists what's stopping us from secretly funding and fueling an uprising in Iran? I don't really know if this is completely feasible, and the downside is that there is no guarantee that a successful revolt would lead to a different Iran that is US friendly. Just like fueling Osama and the Afghans in the 80's against the Solviets solved one problem but led to another with the empowerment of Osama and his sect.

[boutons_]

"The hardliners of 1979 are dying off"

yes, but the current president is young and comes right from the hardest of the hard-lining faction.

It's about power, and there will be plenty of young guys willing to step up and grab the power.

Oil at $35 barrell would cut Iran's monthly mischief-making revenue from $4B to $2B.

[PixelPusher]

No worries. I'm sure the Iranian people will greet us as liberators.

[Nbadan]

I can't decide whether Iran's endgame is a suicidal attack on Israel, or regional hegemony. Rational thought would dictate the latter, but how can I be sure I can depend upon Muslim fundamentalists to use rational thought when in the U.S., far less wacky Christian fundamentalists so obviously do not.

If Iran is just aiming for deterrence, then an attack is the last thing we want to do. Our aim should be to help rot out the Islamic Republic from underneath, so that the fervently pro-America Iranian people gain self-determination. At worst, long-term we'd have another France.

Rational thought would also dictate that you have better intelligence sources than a guy named Curveball before you go invading a country under the premise of WMDs or links to Al-Queda (whatever that is), but that's not the way PNAC saw it then or sees Iran now.

As things stand now, we are one serious terrorists strike from martial law and WW3, perhaps the closes we've been to someone actually using a mega-ton nuclear explosive in war-time since the Cuban missile crisis, and the crazy thing is, it maybe the U.S. that uses it.

[Nbadan]

Atlantic Monthly did a war-games study recently that determined the likelihood of success of airstrikes against Iran to neutralize their nuclear capacity. The study showed that Iran has been preparing for U.S./Israeli strikes for at least a decade. Airstrikes alone won't take out Iran's nukes. They have heavy missile defenses along their entire perimeter. Many of their facilities are buried deep underground, where only tactical nuclear weapons ("bunker-busters") would have any possibility of success.

According to reports, the Pentagon has been running war games too, and no matter the strategery, the scenarios has never been good for the U.S.

[whottt]

Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran giving every country in the middle east the excuse to go to war with Israel and inevitably dragging the US into a bigger ME war likely to be an even bigger clusterfuck than things are now over there?

At least we are getting all of the dumb ideas out in the open.


Translation:

Oh the poor mideast civillians how Brutal Israel is.

[RandomGuy]

I think you might be underestimating a dictator's ability to hold onto power. He controls the military, the media, and the government. If it's in his best interest to foment dislike for the United States, regardless of how the US is actually behaving, he will.

He is not a dictator.

The real power structure in Iran has installed him as little more than a puppet that generally does what they want. Do a little more reading on the country, and you will find this is so.

US behavior is not entirely irrelevant. There is plenty we can do to weaken the nutbags in charge. Most notably that includes NOT taking military action, and not even threatening to do so.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think Iran poses a threat to the US right now, but they are shrewdly building alliances around the world.

Once again you overestimate them.

The Chinese have made it clear in no uncertain terms that they do not want Iran to have nukes either.

This was rather evident in a little publicized speech by a senior Chinese official at a conference in Iran that was stunned the Iranians who attended it with its disapproval of Irans attempts at nuclear power.

Neither do the Russians, who have their own problems with muslim extremists, want this.

As much as the Chinese and Russians want to counter balance US power, they will not do with the Revolutionary government of Iran.

There are other factors that complicate things, but that is the short of it.

[RandomGuy]

Hate to bring up a WWII analogy (get chastised for it), but Hitler got less than 40% of the vote. His was not a particularly popular position (especially with those over 30) in Germany. Didn't stop him

Iran is not an industrialised country capable of overrunning its neighbors, among other things.

The attempts at ww2 analogies just don't work and, more dangerously, lead one to conclusions that are the opposite of current reality.

[RandomGuy]

Since the Iranian people are completely oppressed by their government it seems the best course of action at this point is to work behind the scenes to empower the people to take on their government. The administrations main stance should be one of - "Iranian people - we are not against you. We would like to help you end the years of oppression you have been under." - or something to that effect. If the Iranians can secretly fund and fuel terrorists what's stopping us from secretly funding and fueling an uprising in Iran? I don't really know if this is completely feasible, and the downside is that there is no guarantee that a successful revolt would lead to a different Iran that is US friendly. Just like fueling Osama and the Afghans in the 80's against the Solviets solved one problem but led to another with the empowerment of Osama and his sect.

We did fund an uprising in Iran. That is part of the problem. Do some reading on how the Shah was put in power.

[101A]

He is not a dictator.



I am talking about Khameinei - from what I can tell, "Supreme Leader" pretty much fits the bill both in title and practice for this cat.

[RandomGuy]

I am talking about Khameinei - from what I can tell, "Supreme Leader" pretty much fits the bill both in title and practice for this cat.

AHHH.

I thought you were talking about Amedinejahd.

Even so, even Khameinei's power is far from absolute. The Iranian government is not a dictatorship. Power is spread among more than just one titular head.