The goal should be to carry out sustained airstrikes over a 48-72 hour period that would “decapitate” the regime.

That all sounds good in theory, but I read that the actual plan approved was not that extensive. It was limited to surgical strikes against Al-Qods training camps. More of a slap in the face. Of course Iran will probably do something stupid like counter attack. The US counter attack to the counter attack could reach larger proportions.

Posted by: duh_swami at May 21, 2008 9:09 AM

The Iraqi's communicating with the US said Iraqi's all hated Saddam and they would support an invasion too.

How's that working out?

Posted by: Borg at May 21, 2008 9:13 AM

Other targets should be the nuclear installations and oil refineries. And any other significant civil and military infrastructure. Cripple them. That's what the Allies should have done in the 30s to Germany and Japan before the barbarism and evil spread.

Posted by: johndoe at May 21, 2008 9:17 AM

Shortly after the US went into Iraq, I saw a news report of the reaction inside Iran. As the reporter, Chris Wallace if I remember correctly, began speaking, a woman perhaps in her 50s or 60s approached him and said, in English with a Farsi accent, that the US should also invade Iran while we were getting rid of Saddam. It was so unbelievable to the reporter that he repeated it back to her to make sure he had really heard what she said.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at May 21, 2008 9:26 AM

Idle talk like this only fosters confusion. Any kind of strike on Iran is an act of war, so it's important to be clear on the purpose. What will be the war aims? Eliminate Iran's nuclear capability? Cripple support for insurgents in Iraq? Target the regime's top honchos? Factor in not only the delicate balance of nationalist sentiment (no one really likes being attacked), but also whether a lame duck administration has any business committing the military to an enterprise that may not survive the coming elections, and all you have is the usual round of wishful thinking. About the only thing that could make sense at this point is an Osirak style operation, but that doesn't seem to be high up on the list of priorities.

Posted by: pravasi at May 21, 2008 9:27 AM

These Iranian dissidents are of the same reliability as the Iraqi dissidents (Chalabi and friends). Deja vu.

Posted by: george_rem at May 21, 2008 10:08 AM

Our only actions should be to prevent a nuclear capability from falling into the hands of the Iranian lunatic theocratic cranks.

Anything else, the Iranians will have to do on their own.

They can decapitate their own leaders.

Otherwise, like the Iraqis, we do the dirty work for them, and then they will fall into the same-old-same-old Islamic sectarian chaos of Eternal Vendetta, blaming us for everything, as usual.

We need to further our interests, not theirs.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 21, 2008 10:29 AM

This has got repeat disaster written all over it.

Posted by: walterc at May 21, 2008 10:59 AM

Iranian dissidents would welcome US strike against Iran.

So what? That's not a valid reason to do it.
The US should not use the military to "send signals". We go to war or we don't. We attack Iran at full throttle or not at all. Let those dissidents make the symbolic attacks. It's their country.

george_rem has it right. Chalabi set the standard. It's deja vu all over again. The US shouldn't contemplate any action against Iran unless it is all out war. Rather than bombing, the war could start by closing the Straits of Hormuz, choking Iran's economy. Make the people of Iran fix their own mess.

Posted by: PMK at May 21, 2008 11:01 AM

george_rem's standard has a simple litmus test. Are the Iranian dissidents in question willing to jettison Islam, and make Iran explicitly a non-Islamic country? If they are, it's worth preserving the integrity of that country even as its regime is taken down. But if they are apologists of the type 'the mullahs are just distorting Islam', then they shouldn't be supported at all, but instead, treated like just one of the many Islamic factions that we'd like to see in those Alien vs Predator contests.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 21, 2008 11:50 AM

"Iranian dissidents would welcome U.S. strike against Iran"

Didn't we hear this same story before we invaded Iraq?

We were heros for about two weeks, and then we were nothing but Infidels defiling the sacred soil of Islam.

The majority of Iraqis might secretely want us to stay there, but they sure the hell are not going to stick their necks out to support us.

It won't be any different in Iran -- except maybe worse.

When we do attack Iran, we shouldn't be under any illusions that the Iranian are going to run to our support.

Posted by: rational at May 21, 2008 11:52 AM

Iranian freedom-fighters must be planning their own attack with whatever means they have, but they probably want to see how much of the dirty work that the US is willing to do first; since we are better equipped.

Ahmad & Company need to be silenced, but who is willing to make the first move? Bunker bombs or human bombs, seems like an easy choice.

Posted by: champ at May 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Even if the dissidents promised to jettison Islam they won't necessarily be in charge so what they say is no guarantee. They'd tell us whatever we want to hear in order to gain our support.
Like many "oppressed" Muslim countries, they only want to be rid of their current leadership. They still believe in Islamic preeminence. Islam is not something they are prepared to jettison. They may want "secular" Islam and good relations with the West but jihad won't go away. They're not about to turn their backs on one thousand years of Iranian history - Islamic history.
The Iranian people got themselves into this situation, with only a slight assist from Jimmy Carter. That assist was answered with the seizure of our embassy and holding diplomats hostage.
We can blame Carter for weakening the Shah but the Iranian people were the ones who opposed the Shah and supported Khomeini.
What will another assist, however slight, from another American president result in?
Let Iranians free themselves, all on their own. Let them show the world what they're made of. They won't have to share the credit with anyone.

Posted by: PMK at May 21, 2008 12:56 PM

Then why aren't we seeing these 'Iranian dissidents' all ready acting in their country?

I can buy this once I start seeing the dissidents responsibly taking the lead, even if only on a small but regular scale.

Otherwards, they are nothing but 'armchair dissidents' and will talk of doing something and then when something does happen they will start complaining about 'we had it so good back before'.

And yes, I agree that we should attack Iran. And it should be done because of the 'Carter hostage' 444 days, to protect Israel, for their meddeling in Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebenon, and it should be done and admitted for the oil this time. Take the oil and pay for our military costs and lower the price at home.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 21, 2008 1:00 PM

With any luck we can plan the attack during a luncheon between Carter & Hockmad - a fitting end to both.

Posted by: champ at May 21, 2008 2:47 PM

Much as I'd like to see the mullahs de-fanged, I don't see how the President can attack Iran without the approval of Congress. Such an attack would be an act of war, which the Constitution specifies must have the approval of Congress. This Congress is already on record as stating their opposition to any such attack.

Posted by: Rick at May 21, 2008 3:03 PM

Rick,
He couldn't send in troops without Congressional approval but probably any attack on the nuclear facilities would be excused (not that it's legal but that people would wink) as something in keeping with the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory and which it appears to be in violation of.
A few bombers, in and out, and that's that. The world response will be schizoid: thank you for doing that(!) and how dare you do that(!), one in private and the other in public

Posted by: PMK at May 21, 2008 4:26 PM

Let the Iranians show their discontent and be abused by their leaders. This way we can come to their rescue.

JDAM therapy needs to run something like 30-60 days,non stop.

Iran's ability to utilize its conventional forces need to be heavily degraded. From Leadership, Command and Control, Fuel stocks and production, Its Air Force and Missile assets. Electrical Grid supporting their Nuclear activities.

If possible, split the Army away from the Republican Guards Corp.

Our Cylons will be waking them long before they even know what hit them.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 21, 2008 4:38 PM

PMK,
I REALLY hope you're right, but I don't think Bush will see it that way. The US is not the enforcer of the NPT. To launch US forces in any (unprovoked) attack on another country requires Congressional support. Every exercise of US power since WW 2 (and even before then) received Congressional approval. If Bush proceeds in the face of explicit Congressional diapproval, he will be impeached (the moonbats will finally have something). If Bush acts very close to the end of his term (the only scenario that I think makes any sense) he still performs an extra-constitutional act - very bad for the legacy thing and the Republican party. The only way I think Bush can properly act (as hinted at above) is to manipulate the Iranians into provoking a harsh resposne from the US military. But if killing US soldiers in Iraq is not provocation enough, what is? I think the Dems have (again) allied with America's enemies to checkmate any defense of vital US interests.

Posted by: Rick at May 21, 2008 4:49 PM

Rick,
It's too late for impeachment. His legacy is shot, no matter what happens in the next nine months.
Probably our difference is over what constitutes Congressional approval. An attack on Iran isn't going to require stationing troops there. It isn't even going to require taking troops from Iraq. We have treaty obligations with many states in the region, not just Israel. I tend to think there is some instrument that will let him send in a bomber squadron without first getting Congressional approval in open session that would tip off Iran to what is in the works. I think even the War Powers Act gives him some leverage on that score. Surely there is something that will allow him to act in an emergency. The trick is what constitutes an emergency. What did Reagan do in Grenada? I think he acted because American lives were at risk, in that case the students at the medical school.
This doesn't mean I want to see it happen. Far from it.

Posted by: PMK at May 21, 2008 6:06 PM

Let us shoot up some little boats in the water and see what comes of it.

Bush made himself clear when in Israel. Just because the MSM just portrayed the remarks as being against Obama does not make it so.

Let IneedaJob sit in the Skillet he so nicely lit a fire under. Give the Man a Tomato to bite into.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 21, 2008 8:35 PM

A strike on Iran would lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in one instant. Bush is an ideologue, not suicidal.

Keep in mind that the major issue in Iraq right now is which Iran-backed Shiite militia we want in charge of Baghdad.

Posted by: Not Telling at May 21, 2008 9:20 PM

In a perfect world, in which all Infidel nations fully understood the world-threatening danger of any nation combining nuclear weapons with the 'slay or be slain in the cause of allah' memetic program, Iran would be flattened by China, India, America and Russia acting in concert.

The House of Saud and the Land of the Pure would be next if they uttered so much as a squeak.

Mossad, and all major Infidel intelligence agencies together with Interpol would combine to hunt down every last jihad boss with the same level of dedication with which the Israelis hunted down Eichmann and his ilk.

Unfortunately, the five billion Infidels in the world have not yet reached this level of moral and political clarity.

The jihadis have declared "undistinguishing and exterminating war" (to borrow John Quincy Adams' phrase) on the rest of the planet, but the rest of the planet hasn't quite worked out, yet, that that is the case.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 21, 2008 11:18 PM

> If the United States strikes hard and fast, we will support you.

Hah!! Yeah, right. Heard something like this once before. Something about being welcomed as "liberators" in a country not toooooo far from Iran.

I don't remember it working out quite that way.

Posted by: Tom at May 22, 2008 10:04 AM

1. Next they'll be telling ys that we will be welcomed with flowers to place in our gun barrels.

2. Someone is always looking for someone else to fight their own battles for them.

3. What would be gained from even a successful invasion: Another Trillion Dollars of debt and four or five thousand more body bags. And a lot less oil. Sounds like a plan to me. A Bush league plan.

4. Those of you who think that Iranian's supplying Iraqi's with weapons is a causis belli are wrong. Those of you who think that if the Iranians would cease and desist from sending the weapons are also wrong, there are still unexplored ammo dumps in Iran which contain millions of pounds of explosives. They are fighting because they believe themselves right [no matter how mistaken], not because they have the weapons to do it.

Posted by: walfishj at May 23, 2008 7:12 PM