Iran

[Bikewer]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems the talk from both sides of the politcal isles is becoming more and more hawkish.

Ms. Rice hedged her bets by saying military action isn't on the agenda...at present. Then, we have Sy Hersh's article about ongoing special ops intel gathering as to possible nuclear sites.
This afternoon, on NPR's The World, they interviewed John Rockefeller, ranking democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was making a number of rather alarming statements.
Things like, "North Korea is stable and Iran is not". and "The Iranians have every reason to hate us", and a couple of things about the hazards of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Although in general tone Rockefeller made a number of allusions to admitting that intelligence was wrong on Iraq, and that we can "never do that again", there was a lot of tough talk.

This may all be a diplomatic mind-game, of course, putting indirect pressure on the Iranian regime to achieve compliance (or revolution), but it sure sounds like there's an ongoing attempt, much like Iraq, to set the public up for the possibility of military action.

 

[shecky]

Maybe going to war with Iran will be a great idea. What better way to starve the beast?

 

[Hutch]

Iran, indeed. I have become convinced recently that the Iranians are working to develop a Nuclear weapon, and that we do not know for certain how far along they are. Given that, what are our options? These are what I see, at this time, from mildest to strongest.

1. Nothing. In the fullness of time Iran joins the Nuclear club and finds that bridling that particular horse doesn't mean you can ride it.

2. Work via the UN and the Atomic Energy group to negotiate limits/possible sanctions. Problem is that this may not work if Iran is truly determined to produce nuclear weapons.

3. Surgical Strikes to take out capability. Quite possible to do, IF, and that is a very big IF, we know exactly where ALL the sites are, if they are not underground/protected, and our ALL our weapons function exactly as planned. Downside is world condemnation (this Admin is Ok with that), possible oil embargo, probable rise in terrorism.

NOTE: On other threads some have discussed letting the Israelis take it out. Bad Idea. It's unlikely Israeli aircraft would have the range or the 'smart' bombs to do it, and they would have to fly over a US-controlled Iraqi sky on the way, so the chances for success would be smaller with as much or more political damage.

4. Full-bore invasion, ala Iraq. Well, it would be the only way to be absolutely sure. Of couse, it would be against a country with twice the landmass of Iraq, four times the population, an Army that has not been bled out and demoralized, and a united population (at least they would be united once the first tanks form the 1st Armored rolled across the borders). We could do it, but the blood and treasure required would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. And I doubt we coudl even get Militant Labourite Blair with us on that one.

It seems we are going for Option 2, with the threat in our back pocket of Option 3 if Iran doesn't play nice, along with the hope that younger elements will eventually replace the Mad Mullahs and bring Iran back towards the center.

And I don't think we have any other good option at this point. Do you?

 

[Bikewer]

With Iraq out of the picture for the forseeable future, it seems that Iran is positioning itself to be a major player in the region.
If they just want to "join the club", and hold their heads up with other nuclear powers, that might not be so bad. By all accounts, the populace is ready for a bit less religious extremism, and a little more engagement with the rest of the world.
On the other hand, the Mullahs still hold power, and the idea of nuclear-armed religious extremists is not comforting.
A direct attack on US (or Israeli) assets would be suicidal, of course, but the fear would be delivering a nuke into the hands of Al Qaeda. Of course, that was the now-discredited reason for invading Iraq...
Iran's position that it wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes rings a little hollow considering their oil reserves, but they are talking about being environmentally-friendly and all....

 

[Dan Beaird]

Well if we were really smart, we'd just leak a plan that shows how we're going to ship some old Pershing missiles to Iraq and give them to the new government there.

It's sort of like some sick science fair experiment: How much stupidity can one region hold before reason or collapse sets in?

I really think we're taking the wrong tack with Iran. Right now the Iranian ruling men o' god need the U.S. as a villain to distract their population from their own inane 7th Century political system. The smart thing to do would be to just show the Iranians how nice and supportive we are and give them all free Internet access and cable television.

 

[varwoche]

If they just want to "join the club", and hold their heads up with other nuclear powers, that might not be so bad.

Picture it: Virulent fundamentalists who seek the elimination of a nearby nuclear nation. A country with an abysmal track for supporting terrorism. Religious fanatics who believe in martyrdom.

Plus nukes.

They say that Saudi would follow suit. No reason to think the rest of the world would sit on the sidelines. (Nigeria, Belarus, Kazakhstan...)

 

[rikzilla]

Well if we were really smart, we'd just leak a plan that shows how we're going to ship some old Pershing missiles to Iraq and give them to the new government there.

It's sort of like some sick science fair experiment: How much stupidity can one region hold before reason or collapse sets in?

I really think we're taking the wrong tack with Iran. Right now the Iranian ruling men o' god need the U.S. as a villain to distract their population from their own inane 7th Century political system. The smart thing to do would be to just show the Iranians how nice and supportive we are and give them all free Internet access and cable television.

I agree,...that, and show them how a healthy functioning Shia dominated democracy would look via a liberal democratic success story in Iraq.

The nuclear problem in Iran is not that the Iranian people cannot be trusted in the new-cue-lar club....it's that their tyranical system of government cannot be trusted to keep the radioactive penis in their pants. (or would it be under their robes?)

-z

 

[Mycroft]

I really think we're taking the wrong tack with Iran. Right now the Iranian ruling men o' god need the U.S. as a villain to distract their population from their own inane 7th Century political system. The smart thing to do would be to just show the Iranians how nice and supportive we are and give them all free Internet access and cable television.

My understanding is that aside from their government, Iran is a modern nation that already has internet access and cable television and a very well educated population.

 

[Number Six]

IMO, the US isn't going to do anything against militarily against Iran in the forseeable future. They're just keeping the heat on verbally in an effort to make Iran squirm. In Bush's SOTU address he specifically appealed to the Iranian people, many of whom hate the government. Granted it could backfire, sort of a "We have our government but since the US dislikes them too then they must be okay" but OTOH it could possibly work too. The best way to make a population hate religious fundamentalism in the long run is to let religious fundamentalists rule the country and that's what's been happening in Iran for 25 years now. It's just a matter of cultivating that dislike in the right way.

The US has its hands full militarily now and isn't gong to take on any elective wars again anytime soon.

 

[Bikewer]

It is interesting. In another of those The World segments, they talked about the disconnect between the young, well-educated, and rather Westernized Iranians and the Mullah-led government.
According to the article, many of these young Iranians simply ignore much of what the government does. They go to work, behave appropriately in public, then go home to computers, sattelite TV, Western dress, and the works.

Of course, a lot of this behavior is de rigueur in other Muslim countries as well, Saudi being notorious for the ruling class
living a decidedly un-Islamic lifestyle.

 

[Dan Beaird]

My understanding is that aside from their government, Iran is a modern nation that already has internet access and cable television and a very well educated population.

The Iranian government has ordered Iranian ISP's to block access to quite a large amount of the content available on the web. Not just the type of sites you would expect, but a large number of blog sites and any place where opinions may be freely expressed. Check out:

http://stop.censoring.us/