Here’s why: I prefer to contain Iran and maintain our preparedness. I don’t see a clear existential threat to our nation from them. If it becomes necessary to attack, I’d like to have a clear strategy describing how military action is going to achieve our goal. Iran has some serious political weaknesses, I’d prefer to observe what develops. Possibly we can exploit their problems, maybe better to just stand back and let nature take its course, but open warfare doesn’t seem to be the best way to get what we want. See how that’s conservative?

You on the other hand, equate the Ayatollahs with Hitler and advocate immediate punitive sanctions and military strikes, regardless if we have the capacity to do that or what the consequences are. Seems like something in the worst tradition of liberalism. Neocons, ya know, are basically just a kind of cynical liberal.

…on the Semantics, you’ve got to be kidding. I guess Hitler never outright said he’d kill a bunch of Jews so he clearly never meant it right? Just must have been some math homework he was trying to desperately to reach the final solution on.

as I said before, the naivete of you two is almost embarassing to have to respond to but someone has to do. So please do everyone reading this a favor and go educate yourselves.

The Ayatollahs in control of Iran have the ultimate goal of destroying Israel and starting a regional or global conflict, regardless if it destroys them as well. They are beyond reasoning with, or any attempt to contain them.
______________________________

What’s the evidence?

It had better be good, solid evidence to justify launching preemptive strikes, with the current situation in South Asia. Worry is not a good reason to start a war.

Equating al-Qaeda with a state, any state…? Please be serious.

“iran says they don’t want a bomb.”.
Well there. Case closed! What is anyone concerned about. You must work in the osbama administration.

Let’s say we go with your logic though and that there is nothing wrong with Iran having a nuke. Then what’s wrong with anybody having a nuke? Why not just give them out to everybody? If Syria wanted one or if Al-Queda seriously wanted one, do we have anything to worry about? I think your belief in MAD working among irrational people is too naive.

And as far as your Paul being rational comments, let’s try and keep this at the college education maturity level at least.

“Paul Wolfowitz” and “realistic” don’t belong in the same sentence… well, unless it’s “Paul Wolfowitz is incapable of being realistic.” He even says so himself. Just doesn’t agree with him, or something.

Please say just exactly what it is you’re afraid will happen if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? Ignore for the moment that they don’t have a bomb, that they continually say they don’t want a bomb, and various intelligence services have said they apparently aren’t trying to build one.

I’d also suggest you read the latest article of Foreign Policy Magazine where Paul Wolfowitz puts in place a realistic view on things shaping up in the region.

1. Iranian backing of Taliban fighters, since Iran borders Afghanistan. – They already are, look into the equipment used by the Taliban in the ambush in Gangagil that killed 4 Marines.

*They currently are doing the same in Iraq, but that’s not to say that it could not intensify at a sensitive time for us. Iran has shown itself to be a master of turning on and off the tap of insurgent support when it suits them.

2. An increase in Iranian backing of insurgents in Iraq, since Iran borders Iraq. – They are already doing as much as they can in Iraq.

*“2. An increase in Iranian backing of insurgents in Iraq, since Iran borders Iraq.”

3. A strike is likely to start conflict on Israel’s borders with Hezbollah, Hamas, or both. – Israel is prepared for this and the threat is something they’ve been training for continuously since 2006.

* I’m worried about how a new conflict affects the overall climate in the region and how it could hamper our diplomatic and national security interests. Israel only has to worry about Israel. We on the other hand have to worry about Israel, Iran, and the whole goddamn Middle East.

4. Shipping in the water ways around Iran are disrupted by the Iranians. – Maybe but only slightly at most. In the Iran Iraq war, shipping was marginally disrupted and that was when both sides were trying to take out every ship in the Gulf. Right now Iran would only be able to muster a marginally effective force in a very limited area before its entire navy eats a few Harpoons. Their order of battle is exceedingly limited and their little speed boats have limited range and capabilities esp. against a supertanker or a US flagged ship.

*The Cole? Any disruption also affects world markets.

5. Oil prices go through the roof hurting our economic recovery. – Saudi would likely fill the gap, and because physical exports from the region are only a fraction of our imports it would only slightly affect us. On top of that, another sustained price spike will push more consumers away from gasoline consumption and that’s the last thing oil producing counties want.

–Somehow this didn’t work last time we has a crisis in the region and oil prices surged. The world is also coming off an economic crisis.

6. Support for Mahmud Ahmadinejad (now at an all time low) goes through the roof as Iranian nationalism surges, and the opposition movement is resoundingly crushed. – Simply wrong. An attack against Iranian nuclear facilities wouldn’t cause mass civilian casualties.

*Never said, that but the fact you said it tells me you don’t understand that any attack on Iran would rally Iraninan nationalism.

Now if Israel carpet bombed all of Tehran you might see that effect but at this point, most Iranians think that whatever happens to the IRGC and the Iranian military (and nuclear facilities) is well deserved.

*My experience leads to think that this assumption is incorrect. I have read from multiple sources and have yet to see such an out of step assesment of Iranian sentiment.

Ahamdinejad is already blaming the US and Israel for everything from their economic problems to the bad weather for the day so I don’t see how he could really say this any more than he already is.

*He’s trying desperately to rally support around traditional issues to deflect attention from the disputed elction-why make his life easier, by giving him an issue he can run with?

-@Stephen. . Iranians (Shiites) could care less if there are mass casualties among the Palestinians/Jordanians (Sunni) if you need more evidence see who is butchering who in Iraq.

*So Iranians could care less about Plaestinain casualties??!! I’m not even going there.

I personally think that we are going to find out Iran got a nuke when there is a big mushroom cloud in Israel somewhere and Hezbullah takes credit and Iran just gives a wink and a nod and then says they’ll donate food aid to the remaining Israelis.

*There is always the chance that the Iranians could give Hezbollah a nuke too bomb Israel, but it would also ensure the end of Iran. Some may think the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council are suicidal, but I’m not of that opinion. Furthermore, the Iranians would be stupid to follow in N.Koreas footsteps by detonating a bomb, when all they have to do is keep a nuclear capacity.

1. Iranian backing of Taliban fighters, since Iran borders Afghanstan. — They already are, look into the equipment used by the Taliban in the ambush in Gangagil that killed 4 Marines.

2. An increase in Iraninan backing of insurgents in Iraq, since Iran borders Iraq. — They are already doing as much as they can in Iraq.

3. A strike is likely to start conflict on Israel’s borders with Hezbollah, Hamas, or both. — Israel is prepared for this and the threat is something they’ve been training for continuously since 2006.

4. Shipping in the water ways around Iran are disrupted by the Iranians. — Maybe but only slightly at most. In the Iran Iraq war, shipping was marginally disrupted and that was when both sides were trying to take out every ship in the Gulf. Right now Iran would only be able to muster a marginally effective force in a very limited area before it’s entire navy eat a few Harpoons. Their order of battle is exceedingly limited and their little speed boats have limited range and capabilities esp against a supertanker or a US flagged ship.

5. Oil prices go through the roof hurting our economic recovery. — Saudi would liekly fill the gap, and because physical exports from the region are only a fraction of our imports it would only slightly affect us. On top of that, another sustained price spike will push more consumers away from gasoline consumption and that’s the last thing oil producing counties want.

6. Support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (now at an all time low) goes through the roof as Iranian nationalism surges, and the opposition movement is resoundingly crushed. — Simply wrong. An attack against Iranian nuclear facilities wouldn’t cause mass civilian casualties. Now if Israel carpet bombed all of Tehran you might see that effect but at this point, most Iranians think that whatever happens to the IRGC and the Iranian military (and nuclear facilities) is well deserved. Ahamdinejad is already blaming the US and Israel for everything from their economic problems to the bad weather for the day so I don’t see how he could really say this any more than he already is.

@Stephen. . Iranians (Shiites) could care less if there are mass casualties among the Palestinians/Jordanians (Sunni) if you need more evidence see who is butchering who in Iraq.

I personally think that we are going to find out Iran got a nuke when there is a big mushroom cloud in Israel somewhere and Hezbullah takes credit and Iran just gives a wink and a nod and then says they’ll donate food aid to the remaining Israelis.

They now Obama is weak and more likely just a useful idiot that will offer up even more.

In addition to your point, Iran would be completely obliterated if they launched nuclear missiles at either Israel or Europe. Suspect the SAMs would be more useful intercepting conventional missiles at Israel and at Saudi oil depots.

The larger threat is a nuke in a container ship used by Hezbollah attmpting to disguise its point of origin to avoid nuclear retaliation.

Agree with Byron that this is a unique opportunity to appear to concede to Russia, when in reality, we never needed missile defenses for Europe due to risk of one-sided destruction if Iran ever used nukes on missiles.

We also need Russia’s help to get supplies and equipment to Afghanistan as the surge continues. If this helps keep S-300 out of Iranian hands, that will help. Reduced tensions don’t hurt, either.

It appears that The Russian Federation is willing to corporate with NATO (the United States) on this issue. The Russian Federation has agreeded to relocate all the ballistic missiles they had deployed near the Polish border. There destinations were not announced by I think it can be assumed that they will be out of range of any NATO or EU countries.

I know someone is going to say what’s the big deal, most Russian Federation ballistic missiles are mobile and can be put back in place just as fast as they were removed, true, but I thinks it’s time for the United States and The Russian Federation to start trusting each other just a tiny bit. The Russian Federation know that the U.S. and NATO monitor the locations of their equipment as they monitor ours so there is no point in cheating on this.

Maybe the paranoid age of George W. Bush is over, lets hope. so.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I agree with you. I think Obama and Medvedev are playing this exactly right. The only way to stop Iranian aggressive gestures is to isolate them or marginalize them — especially when the Russians and the US talk to each other. So Bush’s aggressive stance with missile placements in Poland and Czech soil have been altered and the Russians in turn have agreed not to place Iskander theatre ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad.

Quid Pro Quo.

Every Arab leader since 1967 has announced to its base that Israel must be destroyed, Nasser, Sadat, King Hussein of Jordan, Saddam and Khomeini, all of them have. This is a hollow threat, sabre rattling at best and must be treated as such if we are to play in this theatre with any credibility. The downside of a strike by Israel or the US would be rather horrid, as you have outlined so succinctly.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

On the other hand, lets see what we could get by a military strike from either Israel or U.S.

1. Iranian backing of Taliban fighters, since Iran borders Afghanstan.

2. An increase in Iraninan backing of insurgents in Iraq, since Iran borders Iraq.

3. A strike is likely to start conflict on Israel’s borders with Hezbollah, Hamas, or both.

4. Shipping in the water ways around Iran are disrupted by the Iranians.

5. Oil prices go through the roof hurting our economic recovery.

6. Support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (now at an all time low) goes through the roof as Iranian nationalism surges, and the opposition movement is resoundingly crushed.