From the Jerusalem Post:
The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.
According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.
The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan...
Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.
Time has come today ya smelly Mullahs and Ayatollahs. How do you say psycho in Farsi? -Ayatollah.
This is what happens when you try to ban Western music. You can reject democracy and human rights and get away with it, but if you try to stop people from listening to Mozart and J-Lo you're in big trouble.
Wont we be playing second fiddle to Israel????
They are gonna blow up Iran first before we become engaged.......the comments being made by Iran in regards to Israel and the holocaust is only a preview to what lies ahead.
Though it was probably already posted here previously,here is some interesting reading:
------
http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/008708.html
"U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee Hearings"
"Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and
International Security
Title: Iran: Teheran's Nuclear Recklessness and the U.S. Response -- The Experts' Perspective
Date: 11/15/05
Time (EST): 3:00 PM
Place: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 342
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the relationship between Iran’s pursuit
of nuclear weapons and its status as a state-sponsor of terrorism."
"And those conclusions are straightforward, which I outline below and elaborate on in the sections following along with recommendations:
1.. The current Iranian regime is the most dangerous in the world and is the single most urgent threat to American national security.
2.. The threat posed by Iran can only be properly understood in the context of the Long War Against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam, which is a worldwide war in which the United States and its allies are unavoidably engaged, and in which the U.S. has active campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3.. While the U.S. should pursue holding Iran accountable for its treaty obligations through international bodies such as the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council, the United States cannot let the ineffectiveness and delay of these international bureaucracies become an excuse for our stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The fact that the IAEA Board of Governors failed in its September 24 resolution to refer Iran’s non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council—which is called for by Article XII C. of the IAEA governing statute--is a troubling
indication that American national security may be threatened by the inaction of an international organization which was designed to help safeguard it.
And the fact that the strongest term that the Secretary General can muster in response to the Iranian President’s threat against Israel is “dismay”-- instead of, for example, pointing out that a sitting head of a government has openly violated the 1949 Genocide Convention--may tell us all we need to know about the current seriousness of the United Nations with respect to Iran. The utter ineffectiveness of the League of Nations to respond to threats to international peace and security in the 1930s is a lesson we should heed if we think that words alone can protect us from the threat posed by Iran."
___
At least some in Washington mostly "get-it".
The continuing deployment in Iraq will severaly complicate this critical operation against the REAL WMD threat. By now no one, including the president, is claiming Iraq really had the kind of WMD program that seriously threatened the United States. Their connections with international terrorism were tiny, while Iran is the premier state sponsor of terror today.
Also, Iran IS a pressing threat. To allow an Islamic regime to nuclearise is madness, let alone one led by Mullah-vampires and a hidebound lunatic like Ahmadinejad. Now we have 138,000 troops tied down next door, and the good we have done in Iraq, wrong though we were about an imminent threat from Saddam, is exposed to overt Iranian machinations if we resort to open war to prevent their nuclear program from coming to fruition.
We should also not forget the immense political capital the United States spent going to war in Iraq. Our international reputation has sunk to an unprecedented new low. If we move against Iran this pain will be redoubled. Though it is atmospherics, it has a severe long term effect.
What we needed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was a clear-eyed look at the true source of terror, of which we are all aware. Our addiction to Gulf oil and the true pressing threats from the Islamic world were the correct targets at that shining moment when the administration could, and did, do whatever they wanted without significant domestic opposition, and with the support of all our NATO allies.
But now it is all water under the bridge. The real nature of the global Jihad is finally penetrating the fog in Washington. The Iranian threat is clear even to the clayfooted has-been powers of Europe. We are left with another bitter pill to swallow, and a steep cost to pay. War with Iran appears inevitable. The resentment against American power will grow still worse, and more young Muslims will cast about for a reason WHY, and we know what they will discover and where it will lead them. More brave young Americans will sacrifice their lives for our security and freedom. Let us all make it worthwhile. Keep speaking the truth, force everyone to see elephant in the room, and never give up.
Quijybo
Things are heating up folks. One wonders the extent to which the Liberal/Left will go to thwart Bush's attempt to deny the Ayatollah's their coveted prize.
Meanwhile, in lieu of their collective position on Iraq, the question must be posed: Is the President and Vice-President of JW/DW in support of a military strike against Iran?
"in lieu [sic] of their collective position on Iraq, the question must be posed: Is [sic] the President and Vice-President of JW/DW in support of a military strike against Iran?"
-- from a posting above
There is no collective position at JW. There are shared views: that Iraq is a tarbaby, and that the Iranian nuclear project is much more of a menace.
And had the poster in question, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, spent less time ordering new explosives from the Acme Missile Company, and more time actually reading, and then taking in, the repeated remarks here about how important it is to deal with the Iranian nuclear project, a constant for the past few years, discussed ad nauseam, and then had also taken in one of the reasons why it is important to get out of Iraq, because the American presence in Iraq makes dealing with Iran less, rather than more, difficult. In light of worry over Iranian retaliation, either by the Iranian military not just over the Treaty-of-Erzrum border with Iraq, or by Iranian agents already deep within Iraq, or by Iraqi Shi'a closely allied to Iraq, no wonder the Americans are hesitant. But no one in the Administration dares to say aloud that one reason why Iran may achieve its nuclear goal is because of the tarbaby in Iraq, he would never have asked such a question.
One more hoisting by his own Petard (hardly out of its Acme Missile box). A glutton for self-inflicted punishment.
Some may wish to know a little of the background here. If you are among those some, click on the link
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009485.php#
and then, by scrolling down the website avenue, you can take it -- beep-beep! -- from there.
There is a time 'to turn your other cheek',and there is a time' to take up your whip'. Jesus used them both in appropriate time and for appropriate people.The first one meant for humans with a heart,and the second one, for the barbarious dangerous beasts.
Let the Ayathollas,who banned the Music,FACE the Music!!.
Happy New Year to you too, Hugh.
To destroy the nuclear capability of a terrorist regime is welcome news to all. There are many in the world who would welcome it.
There will be protests as usual by the left and pro Islamic elements, they should be ignored.
The world needs to be protected from maniacs. The strong must protect the weak.
Iraq is definitely a tarbaby. We can salvage it
gracefully by puling out troops slowly, maybe
leaving any spare materiel to the Kurds, our
only friends (however temporary) there now.
We can declare a victory, and pull out. No point
in staying for years while they bleed us.
We are better equipped to deal with Iran than
Israel is. What we really should have are those
deep earth penetrating nukes (nuclear tipped
"bunker busters"), the vote against developing
them was criminal. The alternative, air blasts,
are less likely to do the necessary damage to
hardened bunkers, but likely to wipe out a lot
of above ground structures, you know, massive
collateral damage. Oh well, I guess you can think
of it as a contribution to ZPG!
The question was based primarily on your repeated assertion that guns, bombs and 'boots on the ground' (there's that lame expression again) are not the most effective weapon against Islam and jihadism, that the ideological struggle is of greater relevence...(a position I don't necessarily disagree with).
But there is a time and place for incendiaries. My broader impression is that you seem to want to fight the jihadis in theatres other than where we are actually engaged (Iraq, Afghanistan).
As for the "collective" position, it was based on Robert's statement that he was "astounded" that someone would ask whether he agreed with you on the Iraqi question since he had after all hired you as his VP (Robert was diplomatic enough not to cite me directly, but since I was the only making such an inquirey, the comment was obviously directed at me).
I suppose I was disappointed at his choice of words, only because I had acknowledged his opposition to the enterprise of trying to spread Democracy to the Muslim world (based on his repeated 'I told you so' posts), and was inquiring specifically about the tactical wisdom of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, something you aggressively advocate.
I thought it was a legitimate question. By his response, I wondered if I should just assume that you and he are joined at the political hip so-to-speak, that the two of you agree on most every facet of tactics and strategy in this war of civilizations.
Meanwhile, isn't our military presence in Iraq a tactical advantage here in terms of a strike on Iran? We are not confined to the use of carrier-based aircraft in the Arabian Sea, where travel distance and thus fuel are greater issues...or in the waters of the Persian Gulf, where US ships are vulnerable to Iranian aircraft and submarine attack. As it is we have a land link and proximity for effective use of strike aircraft, ariel and ground recon and commando teams, etc.
All things considered, one of the strategic advantages of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it has enhanced our position for just such an operation.
Iran has always been considered the main threat. Saddam and Afghanistan were easy targets. A look on a map shows Iran in an American vise.
http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/middleeast.html
Going after Iran and/or Saudi-Arabia right off the bat would have been far more difficult without the first two.
Pakistan will have to be dealt with eventually too.
Iraq certainly was a REAL WMD threat-- any fricken regime there that has the inclination, freedom of action, and the resources to pursue it is a real threat.
I should specify-- islamic regime.
There is no Chang-and-Eng business here. The unshakable point of agreement is a hatred of the very idea of the "collective" -- "collective" views, "collective" sympathies, "collective" attitudes or ideas, "collective" almost anything.
"There is no Chang-and-Eng business here." HF to Cornelius
No, nor Three Musketeers neither, (said in the disembodied voice of Mae West) but I do agree with Hugh that our one unshakable point of agreement is opposition to the "collective."
Amen. I suppose that's why I'm here myself, I share that hatred for the "collective"...of every kind except collective defense.
Stalin's personal proclivities were his own and no doubt contributed to the horrific excesses of his regime. But he was empowered to mass murder his hapless countrymen by the system he inherited and modified...thoroughly collectivist in both schematic and psychology.
Muhammad wasn't as bloodthirsty - he largely confined his murderous violence to actual enemies, but the destruction of the perogatives of the individual were indispensible to the creation and success of both systems.
Which is why I believe individual freedom is the basis for all human morality. There is nothing at all wrong with sacrificing everything - even life itself - for others. But unless the decision is a matter of free choice, it is devoid of moral significance.
Quijybo: "Now we have 138,000 troops tied down next door, . . ."
Having a battle hardened army, consisting of front line units with air-sea-land support, right on the doorstep of the Iranian enemy, is a huge military advantage.
More Quiyybo: "We should also not forget the immense political capital the United States spent going to war in Iraq. Our international reputation has sunk to an unprecedented new low."
"Political capital" from the likes of Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Shroeder, the fantasists at the E.U. in Brussels, and the cynical parasites at the U.N. is worth exactly zero. We are talking here of elitists utterly disconnected with and disdainful of their own populations, their heritage, and the foundations of civilization itself. We should not lose sleep over loss of such "political capital." The louder those guys scream, the more confident we can be that we are doing the right thing. Damn the torpedoes.
The Chang-and-Eng allusion was there only because the original charge was addressed to two mistaken for ideological twins. Otherwise I would have naturally made it three, alluding to la belle dame sans merci who mentions les trois mousquetaires just above. Instead of Chang and Eng, I might have substituted les triplettes de Belleville, snapping their fingers in syncopation, or possibly to another movie, and to Jules, and to Jim, and to near-but-far, unattainable Jeanne Moreau.
Why Mr. Fitzgerald, how very gallant of you. Might you take a coat from your shoulders and lay it across a muddy puddle for me to walk upon as well?
"Which is why I believe individual freedom is the basis for all human morality."
I was remembering a post of yours Rebecca in DW, about how the struggle is about more than just freedom. And upon reflection, I concur. Might I rephrase my statement to say:
The recognition of the worth and dignity of the individual is the basis for all human morality.
With US military in Iraq, it will be easier to co-ordinate with military from NATO, if NATO can agree to along...to destroy Iranina missile defense. the best defence is offense!
I thought that old buggaboo "Cornelius" had threatened to leave this place a long long time ago -- what happened??? I'm amazed to see him trotting out the same old drivel still...
Does anyone else remember his interminable diatribe a while back? He signed his preposterous full name at the end... It was a heart rending masterpiece (and very funny too) -- there were tears -- there were lace handkerchiefs whipping around in the fretful gloom, there was sulking, and, as I remember, baleful accusations of "Ex communication..." and other such stuff...
Anyway -- it's a New Year! -- why not take yourself up on your promise in that sentimental dirge and make like a hair and split? Or is it hare? Anyway, go! Go! Skedaddle! Vamoose!
It's time to get serious about missile defense shields (against states like North Korea and Iran) and serious humint and counterintelligence development--including the capacity to mount wet operations or abductions of our own against select targets.
As for war in Iran, I personally suspect it will unite the country against the invader--including those who hate the current regime. I would never trust the remnant of the Tudeh and the Mujaheddin-e-Kalq as allies.
JSLA,
This is the second time you've attacked me on a personal level in a manner that was completely unprovoked.
I can only assume that either your bio-chemistry is out of kilter or you have a pronounced personality disorder. Either way, I hope you overcome what ails you.
Sincerely,
Cornelius
First of all, a very happy new year to all at Jihadwatch.
From Hugh's post above
...the American presence in Iraq makes dealing with Iran less, rather than more, difficult...
I'm assuming that this was a typo, and that Hugh meant "more rather than less...". In either case...
Now, I support and supported both the wars to get rid of Saddam. I oppose the establishment of Democracy in both cases - I agree that funding an internecine war between the various Islamic factions in both countries, and not letting any party prevail - is a better approach, given that a Muslim majority would use democracy to make these countries Islamic entities, and then sooner or later, join the Jihad against the Islamic world.
In the case of Iran's atomic science project, in what way does the presence of US troops in Iraq (and presumably Afghanistan too, since Afghanistan too is a neighbor of Iran and has its pro-Iranian factions) either help or hamper the US disrupting the Farsi lab experiment?
If the US finally determined that it had to bomb all the nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Yazd, etc, how does the presense of US troops in neighboring countries come in the way?
Boo-boo
join the Jihad against the Islamic world.
Make that the Infidel world
"...the American presence in Iraq makes dealing with Iran less, rather than more, difficult...
I'm assuming that this was a typo, and that Hugh meant "more rather than less...".
-- from a keen and kind poster above
Yes, you are right.
Sometimes less is more. This is one of those times.
Stendec,
Perhaps you are right about the military advantage. I do not care so much about the weak-kneed Eurabians, but rather the rest of the planet. Just as there are benefits to being the envied, perhaps admired hegemon, there are disadvantages to being resented, everywhere.
The real point is, attacking Iran will have unforseen consequences which will be quite terrible. War has a way of becoming something much worse than its architects intended.
Quijybo
Even if the story of the puddle and Raleigh's cloak were true, look what it got him. Despite all he did for England, despite his taking that Virginia dare, despite his role in suppressing on behalf of England and the Virgin Queen some remote relatives of mine in Ireland, his royal favor was sufficient, as first-year law students are taught to comprehend in that part of property class devoted to future interests, "for the life of O" with O being, in this case, Queen Elizabeth. James I put Raleigh and his wife into the Tower, 2rmsw/vue ("we'll take separate rooms, please"), making them Hardyesque Two-in-a-Tower prisoners. Eventually Raleigh lost his head, but while all about her were losing theirs, his wife not only kept hers but managed loyally to preserve her husband's, keeping it by her side and offering to show it to visitors.
Besides, around here it rarely rains. And I don't own a cloak.
Quijybo,
The way I see it, the "rest of the planet" that we need to win over are the regular folks, not the foreign ruling elites, who will never cease to envy and to hate us, no matter what we do or don't do. And the way to win over the regular folks is to always, in word and deed, stand for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, no matter how unconfortable that gets. What we need from those ruling elites is respect, not admiration. By respect I mean the sure knowlege that if they dare attack us, or threaten us with annihilation or subjugation, they will get a painful bloody nose.
"Unforseen consequences which are quite terrible" can come from inaction just as surely as they can come from war. For instance, if President Carter had acted forcefully to the seizing of the hostages in 1979, then Iran might not be the hideous threat it is today. During that episode, the tyrants in Iran lost all respect (of the kind described above) for the U.S. This consequence emboldened them to hatch lunatic plans for destruction of Israel and for world domination.
Maybe runaway Islamic lunacy in Iran would have happened anyway, but the U.S. should never have let that international insult go unchallenged. If Iran today is building a nuclear bomb, then they must be stopped, without fail.
By the way, Quijybo is really hard to type!
"The recognition of the worth and dignity of the individual is the basis for all human morality." - Cornelius
Humm, in the interest of keeping my head (or heads as the case my be), I must disagree. The recognition of worth and dignity itself has no basis in reality if there is no realm of moral truth that exists independent of man.
Morality should be seen an expression of one's fidelity to eternal truth. If eternal truth does not exist, then morality is reduced to time specific social mores, and those who follow that morality are simply dupes of the system, which seems to be the general sentiment.
The idea that man, sufficient unto himself, can create his own moral universe without reference to fixed verities is a source of great confusion. The New Age movement has been especially guilty of spreading the idea that every man is his own god and that self-realization is best accomplished by the creation his own morality; his own private (fill in the blank) religion, if you will. Spiritual substance is thus reduced to mere intellectual figments that then reduce to nothingness upon serious reflection.
Furthermore, the concept of better and worse cannot be supported without the admission of an absolute template by which these things may be measured. The imperfect may only be gauged in relation to the perfect. Without the idea that transcendental absolutes exist as “objective” reality, we have no moral compass by which to guide either our own lives or the life of our civilization. There is no direction pointing to better rather than worse. Everyone and everything is simply “different,” devoid of moral meaning and the morbid fixation on tolerance as a substitute morality becomes possible.
Tolerance, divorced from the rest of the realm of moral virtue, thus becomes an enforcer of anti-morality. There is no longer any better or worse, only "different".
We have lost our direction. We have lost our way.
Stendec,
"Quijybo" is even harder to give medication to than to type. He has psychic powers that exclusively work on the "he's getting my medicine" level. Somehow these very powers are no use when I want some time to myself on the computer.
I guess we are debating a couple of cliches. In the end we all know allowing Iran to nuclearize would be a fatal error. Nothing is more dangerous than a committed tyrant with Muhammad at his back, whispering sweet houris.
When we look at what happened in Iraq, all the assumptions about the course of the conflict turned out to be wrong. If the administration knew we would be in the boat we are in now at the beginning, I do not doubt they would not have done it, regardless of what the president says. Of course, this includes the lack of a threatening WMD program, which Iran surely has.
What I cannot stop thinking about is a worst case scenario. No doubt Europe, Russia and China will NOT back a move against Iran. We will destroy their nuclear program, but their government will not fall; just like Iraq in 1991 they will master the situation internally. Their long, porous border with Iraq will alive with the sound of infiltration. Suicide attacks will be redoubled in Iraq, more sophisticated and more deadly. Iraqis will blame the US for expanding the conflict and more will be driven in the arms of the insurgency. Afghanistan will be subject to the same treatment. Iran will take its oil off the world market and trigger an oil crisis like 1979, maybe worse because supplies are tighter.
If I were Ahmadinejad, this would be the absolute minimum I would do. I would rather see this than a nuclear attack on the US; I live in Manhattan, and so does Quijybo. But man, it's going to be ugly.
Quijybo
RE: Of course, this includes the lack of a threatening WMD program, which Iran surely has.
Syria has the most threatening bioweapons arsenal
and the UN Inspectors even stated that they suspected Saddam's bio stuff was moved to Syria before the US invaded Iraq.
In the first Gulf War, Saddam moved his fighters out of Iraq to protect them. It would be easier to move bio stuff and he surely would.
Keep in mind that Russia has many technicians and military personnel helping Iran with the nuclear program. An attack on Iran has several extraneous elements to deal with. Who knows how
Russia would respond.
Putin has been gradually making Russia more and more dictatorial.
Rafia: Can you give me the Biblical reference for the following statement as I would like to read it.
There is a time 'to turn your other cheek',and there is a time' to take up your whip'. Jesus used them both in appropriate time and for appropriate people.The first one meant for humans with a heart,and the second one, for the barbarious dangerous beasts
If we don't have the resolve to fight a tiny little skirmish in Iraq, we would not have the fortitude to take on Iran, a much larger country in terms of geography, population and resources.
Saddam was the low hanging fruit. Most of his contrymen depsised him, he had almost no support and ruled through sheer terror and intimidation. His army was really not even an army. Challanging Iran militarily would be a far greater task than Iraq.
Lets not get too carried away with the Cindy Sheehan rhetoric that there were "no waepons of mass destruction found in Iraq" Consider what was found since the military invasion:
1) In June 2004 US forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium. Was this to be used for peaceful purposes?
2) The Polish forces purchased 17 chemical weapons warheads from the Iraqi black market that were loaded with cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerfulo than sarin.
3) A roadside bomb exploded in May 2004 that contained the nerve agent sarin. The bomb was rigged from a 155mm shell that was a binary chemical projectile. Because the shell was never fired from a cannon, the agents never fully mixed and the sarin was never really dispersed.
4) Another roadside bomb was inspected by David Kay in May 2004 that was attached to a projectile loaded with mustard gas.
5) US soldiers stormed a warehouse in Mosul in August 2005 and found 1,500 gallons of chemical agents.
All of these weapons were supposed to have been destroyed under the UN inspection program between 1991 and 1998 but obviously were not. Very little of this has made its way to the MSM, I wonder why? Granted, these are not enormous amounts, but when was it ever stated that we would find "stockpiles"? To say that no WMDs at all were ever found is simply not accurate.
If Bush calls the draft us young men in the U.S. will NOT go. Let kid's from Israel go fight this round of crusades. The U.S. needs it's young people to protect imminent threats already inside the U.S. homeland. If bush calls a draft I will not go....especially when China is standing right behind Iran. China wants us to attack Iran. Iran is the bait but North Korea and China are threats that arn't being plugged into the equation.
GFB,
A full-fledged invasion-occupation of Iran is out of the question. Iran is a country of at least 70 million.
The pertinent questions are:
1) Can we degrade their nuclear program with air-strikes/commando raids?...certainly, but for what duration and at what political cost in Iran, at home and around the world?
2) Will the threat of military action bring the Iranians to their senses?...very unlikely, although they may play for time.
I personally feel that selected strikes on specific facilities will be of ephemeral value. We need a more comprehensive stategy.
Didn't the Iranian military forces have a war for years with the Iraqis? How much territory did the Iranians conquer?
They did fight the Iraqi Armed services and got no where. How long did it take the US forces to defeat the same Iraqi forces? What does that say about the Iranian forces????
"Can we degrade their nuclear program with air-strikes/commando raids?...certainly, but for what duration and at what political cost in Iran, at home and around the world..."
-- from a posting above
Question #1. Yes.
Question #2. When Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981, that ended, for more than two decades, the Iraqi nuclear project. And what is to prevent other attacks, at later dates, using different tactics, to ensure that there is no repetition of the current situation? As for the "political cost in Iran" -- what could that mean? Could it mean that the poster thinks we should forego destroying possible nuclear bombs in the possession of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its current highly representative head, because this might, just might -- no one knows -- damage the cause of so-called "reformers"? And what "political cost" elsewhere -- one which I doubt exists, given that the Europeans and Russians and allothers would be pleased, and that even or perhaps especially the Sunni Arabs would be secretly pleased but their Cheshire-Cat smiles might be hard to suppress.
The notion that the United States, or any other Infidel state, should have its hand self-stayed when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, becuase of some damn calculation about ephemeral "political cost," astounds. It shouldn't even be in the calculation, any more than worry over civil war in Iraq and "what people will think of us." Good God.
Ok my friend, you've thrown down the gauntlet. Let's fry this one up.
The "ephemeral" reference was not to the political, but the strategic; if we target specific facilities with selected strikes, do we solve the problem?...Is Iran's nuclear program degraded?...perhaps. But destroyed? No.
You make reference to "future strikes." All well and good. But let's be honest; if Iran's government is determined to pursue these weapons, sooner or later they will acquire them. They are much further along in their technical progress than Iraq was in the early 80s.
Short of a massive bombing campaign that literally destroys the nation's economy and infrastructure, I don't think we're going to stop them with just airstrikes. And this is where world opinion comes in. How would a SUSTAINED bombardment of Iran play out, literally sending the country back to the stone age, creating a refugee crises and mass human suffering?
That's why a more comprehensive strategy is in order. The removal of the Mullah's from power may (or may not) end the country's quest for nuclear weapons. But as long as they remain, we KNOW the quest will continue.
As for the reaction in Iran, at home and around the world, I'm not suggesting that this preclude us from proceeding. In fact, I've been an advocate of military action against Iran for some time.
But to suggest that such considerations "shouldn't even be in the calculations" is a reckless assertion...and charateristic of your propensity for strategic recklessness. For example, you're not only opposed to helping sustain the nascent Democracy in Iraq, but you are on record as opposing the effort to sustain the government of Hamed Karzai in Afghanistan. If you had your way, conditions would be ripe for the collapse of the Afghan government and the return of the Taliban.
Meanwhile, back to Iran. Here is an example of poiltical calculations that might forestall a US military attack. If the USA were to ratchet up the pressure, preparing for airstrikes, and the Mullah's remain defiant, might things begin to unravel for them in Iran? Might the country's populace, already alienated from their leadership, and now faced with the prospect of an unwanted conflict with the world's only superpower, begin mass demonstrations that could lead to the overthrow of the regime?
Meanwhile, another poster has commented on the possible reactions of Russia and China. These are very legitimate concerns. Neither country is about to challenge us in the act, but what kind of strategic turn could be the offing?
Again, this is not for a minute to say that we shouldn't proceed. But to declare flat out that such considerations "shouldn't even be in the calculation" shows a reckless disregard for strategic planning, vision and wisdom.
Touche.
About Bloody Time!!! The State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Security Agency have finally shown some backbone in favor for this country. The jihadist/Ialamofeces get enough of a free pass from our so called mainstream press. Iran and it's "terrorist in chief" need to be targeted for termination. If allowed to develope a nuclear program, it's no telling what or who they will give weapons of nuclear grade mass destrution. The Isrealis have shown us the way to deal with these Islamofeces. Lets do it, American style. With a capital A!!! Why is the German Press reporting this? What happened to the New York/Jihad Times on this story? Oh yeah, that's right. Report it only if it works against the Bush Presidency.