POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?
 

So what do you guys think? If terror-style attacks are the likely result, could this (an attack on Iran) really be considered the best move for US National Security?

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100981_pf.html

If they continue to ignore the UN and insist upon developing nuclear weapons, then I would hope that an international coalition would invade and enforce the UN ruling.

But, it will most likely end up being the U.S. doing the heavy lifting, protecting the world from such a threat while the chickenshit international community heaps criticism upon us.

We are already in the Neighborhood.

They talked this morning about how the Whitehouse was analyzing Iran's current Offensive Capabilities. This lead me to believe the Whitehouse is trying to figure out what Iran can do if we just start dropping bombs all over the place.

I think an Iran invasion would result in serious problems suppressing the population. Unless we were in and out with the express goal of eliminating their nuclear program and nothing else, I think Iran would be a nightmare.

Would allowing Iran to build nuclear arms be the best move for US national security? Seems like you lose no matter what choice you make.

What's the chances of France and Germany actually taking action on this?



Ok, stop laughing.

Rexall has argued on this board before that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

There is a huge difference between bombing them back to the stone-age and an Invasion.

Just keep dropping bombs until they comply with all UN demands. Do not let Bush or the Whitehouse try to take this over, or you will have US troops in Iran. We want UN Inspectors back in Iran, Not US troops.

Nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Call in special agent Harry Tasker. He'll take care of it.

how many wars can one country fight in a 4 year period? seriously. Afghan war was a win, Iraq we lost - what, Bush going for best 2 out of 3? yeeesh.

Call me crazy, but that would be like you looking out your front window and seeing a Russian tank rolling through the streets. Then looking out your back window and seeing the local drunks, shotguns in hand and claiming the Russians lost the war.

don't let your bias blind you. after the Iraqi Civil War and more radical loons take power, all we'll have accomplished is taking control from one mad-man and giving it to many.

the country is as unstable as when we first stepped in, only now the country isn't kept in check by a tyrant and his two sons, the cat is away so the mice are playing. that's not winning a war.

Don't let the media bias blind you. Things aren't as bad over there as they make it seem, and the great majority of the Iraqi population is VERY happy that Saddam is gone, and that they have a chance to vote.

Just because there are pockets of insurgency doesn't mean the whole country has gone to hell. That's like saying everyone who lives in Georgia must be a racist because there are a few Klan rallies every now and then.

As long as I can remember, when it comes to the Middle East, the US has been stuck with choosing between least bad outcomes. I honestly have no idea what a 'succesful' MidEast policy would even lead to, except in terms of what it's not: Not restoring the caliphate, no new Islamist Empire, no nuclear holocaust...

What did Iraq have to do with an Islamist Empire? If anything, we're helping to facilitate movements in Islamic fanaticism.

I was speaking in vague terms, not commenting on any specific policy.

The answer, apparently, is one. Any more than that and things are stretched too thin.

Hell Atlantic is right, if the question is, 'is invading Iran in our best interests?', then it's just a theoretical quetion from fantasy land. We don't even have enough troops to keep things from going to shit in Iraq or Afghanistan, what they heck are we going to do in Iran? Not to mention that we have even LESS of a casus belli with Iran than we had with Iraq. There is literally nobody to invade Iran.

I think there is an argument to be made. Things tend to cool down when Nukes are introduced, look at the Pakistan/India conflict: they are on the best terms since the breakup. Iran with nukes is certainly better than a US invasion of Iran. I think best case is still Iran making a deal to give up their nuclear program.

I think it is a pointless exercise in rhetoric. This simply isn't going to happen. I actually agree with Biggles. There are no troops to pull it off, and Iraq has got to be more than enough warning that you can't just go off willy nilly making policies regarding this region without some forethought.

I'm still wishing we had completely taken care of Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq.

Tell me, what would 'things going badly' look like to you? I mean, just yesterday fifty people died in attacks, including six American soldiers. The day before, 42 bodies were found on various roads and 26 people were killed in various other attacks. That's 118 people over the last two days.

Because really, every objective fact says that things suck over there. Journalists and politicians can't leave their hotels or they'll be kidnapped or beheaded or both. Most of our 'coalition of the willing' have deserted us. Electricity production is at a three year low. They can't even get enough clean water in Baghdad.

Is this all made up? We've spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and you are telling me that this isn't that bad? So what would a 'bad' Iraq look like? Or are you saying it looks good compared to a post-apocolyptic, nuclear winter Iraq? Or is it your position that these events are made up by media? What exactly do you mean?

I was going to write this before, but I forgot: surgical strikes are still theoretically possible, but a bad idea. We have a hundred thousand troops pinned down just across the border from Iran. We make any move, and all of a sudden they become targets. They go from fighting an insurgency to fighting an insurgency plus airstrikes. Not a position that I want to put them in.

Even if that weren't the case, I would rather Isreal took care of it. It is much more their security that a nuclear Iran would threaten, not so much ours.

I mean, after they saw how great of a success Iraq was, they just have to help us invade Iran, right?

It's bad form to make fun of them for being right.

Totally crazy.

Be careful, that statement may get you labelled as an anti-semite around here.

Well I'd say it's bad form to say they were right about Iraq, even with the difficulties we've faced there. Right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. They were wrong then..and to boot, they were wrong for the wrong shelfish reasons.

Yes.

A) It is quite clear in my mind that the mullahs intend to acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of cost. Whether or not you think they should be allowed to have them, at this point there is no way you can rationally look at the facts on the ground and believe they only intend to use nuclear power for civilian uses.

B) It is also clear that the government of Iran has 1) been pursuing a low-level war against the US for quite some time now, most notably in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing that is only tempered by the desire to avoid striking hard enough to provoke a full US response, as well as 2) pursuing a foreign policy in the surrounding area, particularly the Levant (Lebanon/Israel/Palestine) with Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad and now Iraq al-Sadr, SCIRI, Badr Brigrades that is both against these countries interest and ours, and 3) preparing for a larger showdown with the US by setting up terrorist assets abroad (as this article helps point out.)

C) The majority of Iranians are opposed to the mullahs hold on power, particularly among the youth and in the cities, regardless of whether they would support a foreign overthrow of the government. Unfortunately, the government is probably ruthless enough to prevent any overthrow in the near (5-7 years) future.

D) If they felt they had nothing to lose, those in power would love to annihilate Israel and possibly the US.

E) The UN will do nothing with teeth, as at the least France and Russia do not want to support military action, and China would block any economic sanctions regarding energy deals.

F) While we likely do not have the troop strength to occupy and rebuild Iran, particularly if we kept a large presence in Iraq, we undoubtedly have a military quite capable of destroying the regime in classic military terms. What comes next is uncertain, but there appears to be at least a little more of a developed civil society in Iran than in Iraq during the Saddam era (ie, there were attempts at domestic reform from people still alive, ie in Iran they were just shut out of power rather than shot as in Iraq.)


Thus, it is my firm belief that unless the US (and possibly a few other countries stepping up in a support role) takes military action real soon (5 years maximum) we will be forced to deal with a Mullah-run Iran with nuclear weapons. Under this scenario, the only options left for us will be either A) support a despotic regime against the will of the people - B) idly accept greater Iranian power plays in the ME, particularly regarding the Saudi Arabian oil fields - C) hope for a peaceful overthrow where all nuclear material stays accounted for - D) write off Israel and much of the Middle East, consigning it to an eventual nuclear holocaust or E) hope the current leaders don't mean what they say.

Since hope is not a strategy, I prefer to engage the enemy ASAP - before they acquire the one thing (nuclear weapons) that negates most of our relative strength in a conflict.

This is another situation where I wish we didn't have to pursue this strategy, but I don't really see any other realistic endgames other than the ones laid out (actually one exception - US bombing of suspected nuclear facilities sans-invasion and the Iranian response, but in short I think if we're gonna attack someone, we gotta do it all at once. Never wound an opponent who wishes you death.) If anybody disagrees with anything I layed out, I'd love to hear it, I just hope I laid it out fairly clearly.

Scenario: Your conservative political party is falling out of favor. The moderates have a big voice now in government. Out of nowhere, a gift is presented to you: the leader of the easiest political target in the world calls you part of an "Axis of Evil" in his most important speech of the year. Is the rational thing to do:

A) Condemn the statement and foment the nationalism in your country, going completely overboard in your rhetoric demonizing your opponents while acting passively militarily. Win the support of a majority of your country and stay in power.

B) Tell the other country how sorry you are for being evil and get trounced by the moderates. Your career is finished, you'll be lucky to escape jail.

I'm not entirely sure why people keep saying Iran is not a 'rational actor'. After all, isn't this the same country that while demonizing the US as "The Great Satan" was trading hostages for arms with the US? They know rhetoric gets them support. They also know how to act practically in the world.

Your hypothetical relies on at least two rather suspect pillars of support - A) the "Axis of Evil" speech was somehow the impetus for Iran's bellicose rhetoric, when that rhetoric predates the revolution and B) the elections were legitimate and the mullahs weren't banning hundreds of candidates.
I believe they are a lot more rational than most people give them credit for. I just disagree completely with what I believe are their goals.

This is one of the most difficult situations I think this country has faced in many years.

I was talking over the weekend with a guy who's fairly high up in the military, and when I asked him about Iran he was very evasive. I think the military recognizes the probable outcome of getting rid of the current power structure in Iran, but that chaos might still be preferable to a nuclear Iran.

As for France and Germany, they'd probably be more likely to go along this time around. The biggest obstacles we'd face would be China and Russia.

I'm not making fun of them for being right. I'm not asking for them to "help" us invade anywhere. I'm asking them to step up and take leadership and actually do something with teeth. I would like them to do all the heavy lifting on handling Iran, and we just play the support role. That will never happen because they won't do it, and the US won't allow it.

The most obvious problem is that we don't have any troops to invade with.

I think your solution (hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in investment) is worse than all of those.

I actually think the US would allow it. It should be apparent that letting them run with the ball is better than the alternative, in that we have to carry it. I think it's pretty obvious that we are already spread pretty thinly.

Allowing a violent regime to arm itself with nukes would be a BAD idea.

Since when is 'leadership' defined as a willingness to start wars of agression?

Who's violent now? :confused:

You need to start living in reality, not "happyland". Wars are a terrible, terrible thing, but they are sometimes neccesary. As for my position on Iran, it's not an easy position, and I do think some progression in dealing with it needs to be done. What exactly that is, I'm not sure.

Leadership doesn't have to be postive. Leadership is the capabilty to lead, the ability to get people to buy into your ideals and direction. Hilter might be the greatest leader in the last 100 years or so, based on his leadership skills alone and how he managed to get people to do what he did. Of course, what he lead for was one of the worst acts of human kind ever.

Speaking as a non-American, I'm not sure going to war is the best option for the US. In the past 2 years, there have already been 2 wars fought against states that are technically "Muslim" and with varied success. A third war launched in rapid succession, even if successful, has great potential to unite the Muslim community against what would appear as American aggression. Bear in mind the reason for the war against Iraq has been proven to be largely false, i.e. WMDs that do not exist. It would be incredibly easy for another American-led war to lend further support to the anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community in the Middle-East and this would push hopes of peace even further out the window.

This of course doesn't even take into account other considerations such as whether a war against Iran would even be successful and/or whether the American public would actually agree to send more of its people out to fight in a foreign country.

this is everything i was gonna say, except yours had links.

Where did I suggest it did?

Too bad we had to invade Iraq or we might actually have the resources and global reputation to at least have this discussion. As it is, to the rest of the world it has to seem a bit ironic that a country armed with nukes (and the only country to have ever used them against another) that is just coming off invading another country is now considering invading someone else on the grounds that we don't want to see an aggressive, nuclear power.

In "happyland" Iran hasn't attacked any foreign countries, since they were called Persia. What are things like in reality?

You said it right here. You said that you wanted them to take some 'leadership' and do the heavy lifting of starting a pre-emptive war of aggression and invading Iran.

Did I say that? Or are you reading into my statements?

It is kind of silly to start calling Iran a 'violent' regime. Do they prop up violent groups elsewhere, yes. But they realize that those are different from directly invading another country. If giving money to proxy fighters is the mark of a 'violent' country, then we may have some problems with our own.

I think Iran is going to be the next President's problem, and one that he/she will have better options at their disposal. From what I can tell, Iran is not very close to having nuclear weapons (maybe 10 years out, something like that), and there is still the possibility that some sort of engagement (similiar to our policy with Pakistan) might produce more stable results.

FN, I'm still curious as to what you meant by it 'not being as bad as the biased media' says it is. One thousand Iraqi's are dying per month. Per capita, that is like 100,000 people dying per year in the USA. Is it your view that that story incorrect, or is the media saying it is actually worse than that?

If we decide that Iraq is a lost cause, as many (I believe including you) are proposing we do, suddenly there are ~150,000 battle-hardened US troops 100 miles away from the Iranian border. Not to mention troops and bases on the other border just in case you want to make it a 2-front campaign. Since pulling out of Iraq would be an acknowledgment that nation-building failed, we wouldn't bother trying to occupy Iran and rebuild it, we'd just go in, kill/remove the main people in charge and more or less leave.Hmmmmm.... I don't seem to recall advocating a solution that included hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars of investment. In fact, I believe I was pointing out how allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons only makes it more likely that a scenario with a million+ deaths would eventually result. But maybe you can show me projections that show how under 3,000 dead US soldiers in 3 years and approximately 12,000 dead Iraqis a year turns into hundreds of thousands dead and trillions in investment when we're not rebuilding Iran post-invasion.

I'm sorry to hear that 6 Americans died. Out of the 118 people that died, the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about.

Are you fucking serious ?

I would consider that plan a 'war crime.'

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

I'm sick and tired of bleeding hearts that deplore all the "innocent" lives that are lost and pay no attention to our soldiers who are over there.

I think calling it a 'plan' is giving it too much credit.

I wish more people who believed this would plainly say it as you have. It would make voting the current leadership out of power so much easier.

If others had "plainly said" this, I firmly believe we would have won the last elections by a wider margin.

Wow, any country that actually attempts to do such a thing would have a lot to answer for. You can't just enter a country, kill the main people and then let the nation fend for itself, that's just irresponsible. You're essentially advocating the destruction of a government and leaving the country in a mess and praying that a decent government actually arises out of this mess. It's not going to happen in all likelihood and you're just going to have another despotic bunch rising to power. But above all that, the people would really suffer :(

I think you're off by a power of 10. ~25 million Iraqis, ~300 million Americans. That doesn't work out to a hundred to one ratio.

As a larger issue, comparisons like this are horribly disingenous. If one person in Grenada is murdered, is that really like a 10,000 Americans being killed? Of course not. It'd be a much more accurate comparison if you say that 1,000 Iraqis dying out of 25 million is like 1,000 people in Los Angeles or New Jersey dying a month.
Why is stability the goal? I can see why in the specific case of Pakistan we have little choice, but thats specifically because if Musharraf goes, it'll be fundamentalist Muslims with nuclear weapons, which is what we are trying to avoid. Since the fundamentalist Muslims are already in control in Iran, and any successive government could not be worse from our perspective, that completely changes the parameters our policy is based on. Overall, supporting despotic governments that destroyed the ME economies is a large part of what got us into the current mess of a situation, and I fail to see how it does anything but kick the can down the road and likely make it a bigger problem whenever we are forced to deal with it.I don't like it either, but it was just to show that if push comes to shove, we do have the manpower to win a decisive military victory. Not to occupy the country, but to invade yes.

Hilarious.

Are you in favor of the Iraq war? I can only assume you are not, since Iraq was not a threat to us and not fighting the war would have meant that at least 3,000 Americans would still have their lives.

Gotcha. You really are a nutjob. Innocent dead Iraqi's are "acceptable casualities" ?

Well, as I commented above, I don't really understand what 'best case' scenario in the Middle East really is. Some people are in favor of forcible regime change throughout the region. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but what then? Are we hoping for something like the EU, a confederacy of more of less free states whose primary motivator is improved economic conditions for their own nations? I like that vision, but I don't see how we get there from where we are, regardless of strategy.

Strictly speaking, I think an invasion, the likes of which you speak of, would detract from the larger goal of a more "secure" (and thus less threatening) Middle East - which is why a pure hit and run attack would accomplish nothing, except fuel further anti-American resentment and push others (like say - the Saudi's) into attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Look, its a standard foreign policy doctrine that nukes today are seen by many as an "American" deterrent - an invasion of Iran would push more countries to develop, achieving the perverse goal of further proliferation.

I'm guessing Mr. B has become religious since he is observing the passover on my question.

Most "bleeding hearts" deplore the loss of lives of both innocent Iraqi civilians (don't see the need for "quotes") and our solider who are over there. In fact, I don't know any "bleeding hearts" who don't. Not a one. I know quite a few "bleeding hearts" (I assume this means liberals). There is no reason you can't deplore both. In fact, I think it's sort of a pre-requisite for, I don't know, being a sane human.

lol

Good catch, I meant per year. Original post edited.

I fail to see how that 'plan' accomplishes any of your supposed goals. The odds of a democracy spontaneously sprouting is next to zero. They can just start right up their nuclear plan again. They may emerge stronger, united with an Iraq that we left in civil war. The end result is thousands of lives lost (probably hundreds of thousands, including Iranian civilians, especially if Iran uses real WMD's) plus hundreds of billions at least in military funds, especially if the leadership holes up in the mountains and creates a protracted guerilla war.

I have a better plan than yours: A bloodless, costless destruction of a country of 60 million people which leaves them in a good political situation, plus everyone gets a pony! As long as you are wishing for things, you may as well include a pony for everyone, that's my stance.

I don't think the majority of conservatives are unconcerned with the lost of innocent Iraqi civilians. It takes a special kind of monster to truly think that way.

What are you kidding me? You think I want to get into a discussion parsing what you said, where you tell me you didn't mean what you said literally or didn't mean to have a connection between two sentences right next to each other? No thanks, more interesting things to talk about. As soon as I am done watching this paint dry, I'll come back to your line of discussion. :rolleyes:

Show me one place in any post in this thread were I said war was the only option here. Just one. You READ into my statement. Or do you think the only avenue of diplomacy is war? You have a real black and white view of the world, don't you?

Agreed.

I think the majority of 'hawks' don't see war with Iran as being desirable or inevitable at this point. Shoot, there are very few on this board more 'hawkish' than I am, and I think military action against Iran is totally out of the question.

Where one happens to land when one falls from one's mother's vagina is a method to distinguish worthwhile human life from worthless human life.

There are, however, other ways to measure the value of human life. I invite you to explore the teachings of the world's major religions and schools of philosophy/political thought. Most of them provide insights that you may find enlightening on the value of human life viz a viz other interests.

Where do we make nominations for best post of the year?

FWIW, fighting to defend the ideals of individual liberty against oppressive religious totalitarianism is one of the few issues important enough to go to war. IMHO, of course.

That is sticky. What if the people want to be governed by religious totalitarianism?

Not the US

The thread topic is 'Is attacking Iran in our best interests'. You declared your desire to have France and Germany show leadership by 'taking action' on this. Saying you want someone to take action on attacking someone is pretty close to exactly the same thing as saying they should invade. Since both countries been involved in diplomatic resolutions with Iran, what you now say you meant, for roughly decades, I figured you knew that and was alluding to something more. I'm sorry if I gave you too much credit. So what was it exactly that you wanted them to 'take action' on?

I realize that it is sticky. I guess that somewhat inherent in my notion of "totalitarianism" is the idea that it is being imposed on others via force. That, given the freedom to act naturally, people will gravitate toward systems that allow more--not less--personal freedoms. And systems that allow for more, not less, equal treatment for everyone. Of course, maybe that is just how I want to see the world and not how the world actually is.

None of this, of course, answers whether or not we should invade Iran. I frankly have no clue. It's a very complex question to me--that involves a ton of factors.

I didn't intend or mean to imply that at all. I have no doubt that what you say is true. I was just refering to the notion that "bleeding hearts" (aka liberals) are concerned only about Iraqi civilians and couldn't give a damn about U.S. troops. It's horribly insulting. I would never think the opposite were true of "conservatives."

We are in total agreement on this.

I see. So, your putting my comments in the light of rex's begining of the thread. Note, "attacking" came from his words, not mine.


I do know they have been in discussions with Iran, as well as they were in Iraq. The problem is they are more interested in doing business than actually solving problems. I believe completely that actions from both (especially France) could have prevented the Iraq war, and still could stop Iran from nuclear proliferation. The problem is neither have shown a will to give up what is required to make that happen (most of which is on the financial side of the equation).

I would not rule out the possibility that they might have to use force (or at least give a realistic threat of force) which is something they have been willing to do in other areas when it was in their financial best interest. That, though, is not necessarily the only course of "action" here.

I'm still not getting what you want out of France or Germany. What more do you want from them? They were onboard with the Iraq inspections and threat of force, until it became clear that the US and UK wanted to go to war no matter what. How exactly could they have prevented it? The US had decided a year before the war that they were going in no matter what, and even had scenarios planned to create the war themselves if possible, USS Maine/Gulf of Tonkin style. What exactly did you want France to do?

I think we are steadily getting there - the indirect pressure of Iraq seems to have had some effect on helping liberazlize some ME countries. As long as dictatorships are self-contained, like Egypt, I think we can deal with slow change (although I'm not a huge fan of the $3bn US foregin aid) but when the government supports terror groups, I don't know. Of course, the only bigger financier of terrorism than Iran is Saudi Arabia (through the funding of madrassas - check out Pakistan/Indonesia/Thailand/Bangladesh/Nigeria/etc), so there's no easy, obvious solutions here. But I really think it's something that needs to be figured out sooner rather than later.
In the short-term, undoubtedly yes. But I think its necessary at some point because I fail to see how ignoring the problem doesn't lead to a bigger problem down the road. If you mean among the vox populi, there's always talk of the "Arab Street" rising up, but it never seems to materialize. Outside of Iran itself, I really doubt that invading a 3rd country is going to mobilize legions of opponents. Yeah, they'll hate us for it, but they already do, so I don't think we have much to lose in terms of popular support. I completely agree with the perceived "American" deterrent. But I disgree about the effects of an invasion. Rather than spur more countries to pursue nuclear weapons, I think that seeing the US actually back up their rhetoric on the non-proliferation issue would serve as enough of a deterrent to at least offset this. If Iran is allowed to get them, just as North Korea was before them, and Pakistan before them, there is no disincentive to other countries.
It wouldn't spontaneously sprout. There already were reformers/moderates garnering large public support and going through the parliamentary/elections process. The Guardian Council just blocked any relevant reforms and eventually banned most of them from running. (EDIT TO ADD - Now of course, foreign intervention could possibly swing the popular opinion dramatically, but) Unlike Iraq, these institutions wouldn't have to be built from scratch. I feel compelled to point out that doesn't mean I think things would be perfect or easy, but I haven't seen a better plan presented. They probably would, but pretty much any different government is less of a threat. I'll just say I think that's overblown. The reason Iran has strong ties to leading Shia groups is because of the huge amounts of money being poured into Iraq. As for the average citizen of these countries, remember they fought a war 10 years ago where Nationalism mattered more in the end than religion. And also that the Persians have never exactly regarded the Arabs as brothers. I'm not gonna deny the possibility, because no one knows for certain what would happen, but maybe you could present a different plan that didn't consist of doing nothing, letting the Mullahs get Nuclear Weapons and then hoping they didn't use them.

I believe the people of Iran want more personal freedoms, but I do not believe the will of the people is to completely remove religious elements of their government. Over time more freedom might lead to the desire for that, but I do not think removal by outside force would cause that.


No doubt. I can't see how invasion is the right answer, nor even military action by the US at all is going to do anything but fan the flames of trouble throughout the region. Any military action would have to be as last resort.

Perhaps not skirt the sanctions for 12 years and take bribes from Saddam?

And they would never have been on board with using force. They could be coerced into threatening to use force, but they were never serious about enforcing any of those 2 dozen resolutions authorizing force. To pretend otherwise is at best ignorant revisionism.

There has been ample evidence of the fact France was playing both sides against the middle in the months leading up to the war. They were giving assurances to Sadam that an invasion was not going to take place while at the same time talking tough in the public venue. If they had made clear to Sadam the futility of the situation he was in, I believe there would have been a different outcome.

And for clarity, I'm not suggesting the war is totally France and Germany's fault. It was bad policy from the Bush administration that was followed by even more bad policy. I'm just saying they are not innocent either.

Your plan calls for the decapitation of government and then a withdrawal. That is chaos. I could be wrong, but I don't know of a single democracy that resulted from chaos. They usually come as a revolution over a despotic regime or installed after an aggressive despot is forcibly removed by power, with mixed results (see: Iraq). Just assuming that the democracy will come to power as opposed to a military dictatorship is a huge leap of faith, especially for someone opposed to hope as a solution. Assuming that the new government will be MORE friendly to us, after we invade without reason, is an even bigger assumption.

That's a better plan than yours, I believe. But why not work with them, creating financial ties with them? Grow their economy and tie it into the global economy. If their economy depends on outside ties, they are exponentially less likely to be aggressors (even now I would argue that that is the case). We need some carrot with the stick. It works for Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

You rather wait to be attacked first, or would you try to eliminate a potential threat that is trying to get nuclear weapons? I'm not saying go out and go to war (that should be the last resort), but I don't think you can ignore a situation that could be a serious problem down the line.

Two things:

1) Iran can't attack us

2) Iran has no reason to attack us

Other than that, your logic is flawless.

1.) Iran can attack us, and, just as importantly, they can attack our allies. Or are you saying it's OK with you if they build nukes and then melt Israel off the map? Because that's exactly what they're building them for.

2.) Are you kidding me?

People in muslim states all over the middle east celebrated when 9/11 happened. They'd love nothing more than to see us all burn.

Maybe I missed it, but is there a quote somewhere from the Iranian leaders that says that?

You're right. All they've officially said is that they're enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. We should take them at their word and not worry about it at all.

Not what I said, but there could be more motives behind wanting nuclear weapons than to destroy Israel, couldn't there? Like say for instance to discourage some certain Superpower from invading you?

Actually... there is:
http://www.honestreporting.com/artic...d_the_Bomb.asp

● Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'

● Khamenai said in a recent sermon that 'the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.'

● In Dec. 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani called the establishment of the Jewish state 'the worst event in history,' and declared his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'

You see, that is why I asked. I'm still not convinced that they would use a weapon such as this on Israel (especially if there were immediate threat of retaliation from the US), but you cannot ignore that there is an aggressive reason that Iranian political leaders want this weapon.

Actually, there'd be a more immediate reaction from Israel - they have nukes.

The point is, we don't want nuclear winter over the mideast. In fact, if the UN/US doesn't do something to prevent Iran from continuing to develop these weapons, Israel may indeed take pre-emptive action. And that will probably throw the whole region into even greater turmoil.

So, really, it's better for everyone if Iran isn't a nuclear power.

Launching a pre-emptive war is sketchy by itself. Launching a pre-emptive war because they might attack some other country that is perfectly capable of defending itself is ludicrous. Isreal has and always will do what is best for it's own security, and we should do the same.

You still haven't answered the question. What reason do they have to attack us? Even if there was a reason, anything they do to us, we could do to them 100 times over. It's just not a rational move at all. Consider the Soviet Union. With all the proxy wars and such, they had legitimate reason to attack us, and they had about 10000 times more firepower than Iran does, and the economy wasn't as globally linked as it is now, and they didn't attack us.

And I am still waiting for what you meant by it not being that bad over in Iraq.

You mean think like this?

That would be the subtle hint in his post... I don't think explaining it further really adds anything ;).