I hope the Selective Service is up to speed because we're going to need a few more troops to fight a nation of 67 million people.

If they're attacking us, then war it must be, I guess. I expect better proof than they came up with last time.

Doc, I sincerely hope this is a false alarm.

David, we've had this conversation before, but I'll ask again: how many folks do we need to draft to arm bombers, which will likely be the primary way we engage Iran?

They have very limited air assets, limited air defense assets, and lots of distance to cover to attack U.S. regional forces with anything other than rockets or small-scale airborne insertions. We've got three or four carrier groups in the area, and an Air Force that is largely bored and very well armed.

If we wish to simply defend Iraq, we can do so while inflicting tremendous "highway of death" type casualties.

Um, are any of you guys actually looking at the source of this story? I've lived in the UK -- the Sun is about as reputable as the National Enquirer.

It's not just that it's a Murdoch-owned publication with a semi-nude girl on page 3. It's that it's a piece of crap rag.

The Sun? Not a very reliable source at the best of times. They publish online so you can go look;

http://www.thesun.co.uk/

Bob,

I know you think an air war will win in Iran, but I don't think they're going to sit quietly within their borders while we bomb the bejesus out of them.

If their troops are even now coming across the border (and isn't the Sun a Murdoch publication? so much for credibility), how will our ground troops hold off a full scale invasion? In the most optimistic scenarios I've seen, the British in the south will be overrun and our existing ground forces will be in a lot of trouble.

And dealing long-term with 67 million Iranians, now unified against us, who will most certainly take up guerilla tactics will require many more ground troops than we have now.

But if it comes to war, I pray you're right and I'm wrong.

David, do you really think that 67 million Iranians are unified, or would be unified, behind that government?

Bob, nice catch.

"Like the "smoking gun" story I burned as groundless from the Independent"

*ahem*

The Daily Telegraph I think you'll find. The Indy is about as antiwar as a newspaper gets in the UK, and if they published a story about Iranian interference in Iraq I would definitely sit up and listen.

As for the Sun, I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sun would rise in the morning. You've made the right call in backing away from them as a source.

"do you really think that 67 million Iranians are unified, or would be unified, behind that government?"

If we bomb them to bits? You betcha. If you bomb Iran you will end up having to go in with ground troops or nuke them, that should really be the starting point of discussions. We've had enough of hoping for the best.

If you bomb Iran you will end up having to go in with ground troops or nuke them, that should really be the starting point of discussions.

So be it! It is long past the point when we should have made an example out of Iran, or some other Muslim country. I'm for frying the whole lot at this point.

"So be it! It is long past the point when we should have made an example out of Iran, or some other Muslim country. I'm for frying the whole lot at this point."

So you're up for a bit of pre-emptive genocide, are you?

At least we know where you stand. On the side of incinerating millions of women and children simply because of where they live.

I'm glad that I stand on the other side.

Anyone else here in favour of pre-emptively nuking Iran?

Let me make one thing very clear: the next person who advocates genocide--randomly wiping out an entire culture based upon differing belielfs or culture--gets banned.

I support the war in Iraq because I once worked for a wonderful man, a Baghdadi, and I've had conversations with other natives of Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. They were all mostly secular, and all kind, gracious, and democracy-loving people, which is no doubt why they came here when they could. Others without the fianancial resources to leave are stuck in these nations, and live and die on the whims of petty tyrants, zealots, and dictators.

These people deserve a chance at a better life; they do not deserve to have some dolt casually dismiss them as worth quashing like a bug.

If you cannot differentiate between the general public and their sometimes extremist leaders and governments, pleas, find somewhere else to post.

"If you cannot differentiate between the general public and their sometimes extremist leaders and governments, pleas, find somewhere else to post."

*applause*

But that's what concerns me so much about the militarily hyped up state of people at the moment. It seems pretty clear that if you bomb the Iranians, they will respond with;

1) Terrorist attacks around the globe (which they will deny of course).

2) Attacks on shipping in Hormuz (probably mines too).

3) Running to their patrons, the Chinese and Russians for diplomatic defense.

4) Running pretty much 24 hour shows of maimed and killed innocents, particularly children (if they have to they'll mock up a few in a heartbeat but I doubt they'd have to).

5) Actively arming Iraqi Shiite groups with high end weapon systems such as SAMs and explosives, and then leaving those groups to do what they want with them (and they will want to shoot Americans and Brits).

These 5 actions seem to me to be extremely likely, and a bombing campaign is unlikely to stop any of them.

If this happens then what is the US to do? Watch the Brits get slaughtered in Basra? Witness an uprising from the Shiite masses?

Iran could run that game at a range of different settings for decades, they have the staying power to do it. So what is the response? More bombings? What with the Russians and the Chinese making uncomfortable noises and the round the clock "Maimed-Iranian-Baby-Cam" newscasts, the US would need a quick resolution or any government would fall come the next elections.

So that leaves you with invading and replacing the regime by force against what would now be an overwhelmingly hostile population or nuking the place to keep it quiet.

I hope that anyone with an ounce of humanity would renounce the nuking option, so you get left with a ground invasion, this time completely alone. That invasion would be very difficult and a long term occupation would be impossible. Setting up a government would also be impossible. The only objective would be to set up Iran as a failed state in order to reduce its military abilities. This wouldn't do anything to stop Iranian sympathisers from runnning terrorist cells around the globe, but it would at least stop Iranian interference in Iraq, for what that is worth.

Looked at like that (and there is nothing extreme or unlikely about that scenario, just people behaving as people and state behaving as states) we cannot afford to go to war with Iran, almost regardless of what they do.

In my view anyone who advicates a bombing campaign against Iran should be willing to accept either the nuclear option, or a ground invasion. If you aren't willing to accept these outcomes then bombing Iran is off the table and we should be looking at the alternatives.

Iran has blood on their hands and anyone who says different has their heads in the sand. I am a military officer who spent a year 12 miles from the Iranian boarder in Iraq. I have no direct evidence, but heard plenty of Intel reports about Iranian involvement and reports of them being captured by us and the Kurds.

EFPs... google it.

Iran has lots of oil, but ONLY 1 oil refinery and a economy that is on the brink of collapse. I am not a fan of invading Iran or of throwing a missle here or there (ala clinton style) to "show them who's the boss". I would like to see us do SOMETHING. This "what if they invaded Canada" crap I saw on the "smoking gun" page is just BS moral equivalency and belongs on DKOS.

We don't have a few private groups supporting the insurgency in Iraq. We have the government of Iran, using it's military (Quds force) special forces to actively arm, train, and sometimes fight alongside the insurgents in Iraq. This fits the model they they used for Hezbollah (who has been killing Americans for a long time now). Then you have the naval attacks on the Australians and the UK in the gulf as well as the cross boarder ambush on the Iraqi/82d ABN soldiers patrolling the Iran/Iraq boarder. That was in Time Magazine, I believe and all three incidents involved active duty Iranian military units crossing an international boarder and attacking coalition soldiers. Not exactly 'out of character'. Come on... it's totally "Fake but accurate". You all can lament about how a. proud you are to be the first to debunk this story or b. how this is all just another evil BushHitler nazi conspiracy or c. how we'd do the same thing in a similar situation... but NONE of it changes the fact that Iran has been targeting Americans and killing them for a few decades now. They love we are in Iraq and I say we withdrawl from Iraq, bomb that stupid refinery (in conjunction with as strike on that wacky president and mullah) and a naval blockade of the gulf.

This is like raising a kid or dealing with problem soldiers. You have to ID your expectations, set reasonable limits and punishments/consequences for going outside those limits. I don't think that "don't kill our soldiers or arm and train criminals/terrorists to do so either" is unreasonable) Then when they violate that, you have to follow through or they have no respect for you. This is why Saddam had no respect for the US or the UN (actually does anyone really respect the UN?). This is why Iran thinks it can get away with the crap they are pulling (even though they know, we know they are doing it). Iraq, while it makes me sick to admit it, is no longer worth the effort. We can win it, but we will not muster the 'national will' to do so. There has never been an administration that has blown so much political capital or opportunities as this one. We lost the trust of the Iraqi people a long time ago. Incompetent planning (by politicians not soldiers) and risk adverse politics micromanaging a war lost us this one before it even started. Then political posturing squashed any chance of turning it around.

Note that the market opened up this morning. If this were real then the market would crash.

Pablo,

I do think bombing Iran would unite the country.

Look at how divided this country is. Last week I saw a bumper sticker that said "Beautify America. Kill A Liberal." Yes, I know it was a joke. A joke about killing your neighbor or co-worker because he thinks universal health care is a good thing.

Now remember how united we were after 9/11. So yes, if you want to ally the large, moderate, pro-western middle class in Iran with the extremist mullahs, start a bombing campaign.

This would be insanity.

Along with the consequences Rafar concisely points out, consider this: China gets most of its oil from Iran. If we disrupt their oil supply, they might get a bit peeved. Right now, thanks to Bush economics, China holds notes on our house. The economy would take a giant hit if China started dumping dollars on the market in retaliation for an invasion. And that's the least they could do.

In other words, we're seriously screwed.

A joke about killing your neighbor or co-worker because he thinks universal health care is a good thing.

...or maybe because they want us to lose.

Yeah, Purple Avenger, I want us to lose. Me, a guy with two family members in country. Me, a guy from a military family. Me, a veteran, I want us to lose.

Nice contribution to the discussion.

Rafar - Your 9:31 - We've already been there or are there with your numbers 1, 2 and 5 with respect to Iran, although in number 5 you might want to slip in the word Sunni as well.

"We've already been there or are there with your numbers 1, 2 and 5 with respect to Iran"

At extremely low levels, yes. And we are without doubt engaged in special ops within Iran, and are funding the enemies of the Iranian state. This is a very low intensity conflict at the moment. Bombing Iran directly would lead to a vastly increased level of these actions. This would lead to a cycle of escalation that would lead inevitably to one of the two outcomes that I outlined.

Though, out of interest, which terrorist actions around the globe have been Iranian run recently?

", although in number 5 you might want to slip in the word Sunni as well."

I will when you offer convincing evidence that I should.

Either way, the equation is the same. Are the benefits of bombing Iran worth the cost of having to run a ground invasion or nuclear attack?

Yankee,

I don't know how closely you've been following the EFP story, but the US is on the record saying that components for these are being manufactured in Iran and smuggled into Iraq by Quds Force. We even caught some convoys with EFP components coming over the border recently.

So if Yon says 46 of 48 IEDs were EFP type, that means about 95% of the IEDs he's referring to were Iranian supplied. I'd love to hear more from him on this, but it sounds like what he's saying in his shorthand way is "Yeah, the Iranians did it."

Gentlemen, I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that it is the Iranian government's specific intention to provoke a war, but to do so in such a way as they might be able to blame others.

Their economy is tanking, and the regime is extremely unpopular at home and growing more so each day. They continue down a path with nuclear development designed to provoke the ire and concern of western nations, and back that with genocidal rhetoric and threats.

I think it is quite possible that Rafar may very well be right in his five assumptions of what Iran will try to do.

All that said, Iran is trapped by geography and culture, and is far more vulnerable than most realize.

They have more than 150,000 American servicemen to their west, along with thousands of Iraqi troops with long memories that would likely lay down their secular divisions to fight their natural enemies once more if attacked. Perhaps you haven't been following Iraqi Shia culture, but as I understand it, the Shia, be they JAM or Badr-alligned, gladly take Iranian money, political support, and munitions, but they would--in general--break against Iran if Iran attacked Iraq.

Sunni insurgents and tribes would almost certainly join U.S. forces as well, as an Iranian-dominated Iraq would be their worst nightmare. There would no doubt be terrorist attacks by groups already within Iraq against our forces and Iraqi forces if such a conflict borke out, but those launching such attacks would probably be destroyed rather quickly, by either the military and security forces they attack, or angry Iraqi tribesmen and other citizens.

Iran is bordered on the west by an small but potentially deadly NATO force that includes U.S. forces. They would not be a great threat, but they would, at the very least, force Iran to divide their attention and their assets.

To their south is the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Let Iran shut down the Perisan Gulf, if they dare.

Such an action cuts two ways, as U.S. surface and sub-surface groups in the Gulf of Oman can blockade all gas going into a fuel-starved Iran at minimal risk to our forces, and unmanned cruise missiles targeting their few aging refinaries and velnerable pipeline systems would have them choked off and their military and economy ground to a literal halt within weeks.

This does not take into account possible actions by other Sunni nations in the region as a result of Iran possibly targetting their assets as part of an attempt to close gulf shipping. Saudi Arabia has a modern and substantial Air Force, and would almost assuredly retaliate if Iran attempted to hit their tankers or prots, which is what some analysts think may be part of the Iranian plan.

Further way, if terror attacks are launched against western nations in this hemisphere, Europe, or Israel, public resolve will only free our military to wage what would surely be the most devastating air attack in history.

Iran's navy would be destroyed in days, as would their remaining Air Force. Most of their generally obsolete ground forces, nake to U.S. spy satellites and drones, would be shredded, whether on the march, or bunkered down.

Toothless, and without fuel, I believe we'd allow Iran to have a peace, at which point a defanged regime would have very few credible threats or resources to keep it in power.

A ground invasion? Simply not needed. I think too many erroneously conflate the course of action we took in Iraq as the only option for dealing with other regimes in the region, and that simply isn't the case.

"Perhaps you haven't been following Iraqi Shia culture, but as I understand it, the Shia, be they JAM or Badr-alligned, gladly take Iranian money, political support, and munitions, but they would--in general--break against Iran if Iran attacked Iraq."

I would say that this is certainly true (though maybe not for the actual forces in the Badr brigade, but certainly for the civilians surrounding them), in the case of Iranian invasion.

But we're not talking about Iranian invasion, we're talking about Iranian response to an attack. If Iran were attacked by the US, those same Iraqis have stated publicly, and would almost certainly carry through on, a promise to attack US forces in Iraq in response.

This is quite a different situation. In one we have the Despised Persians attacking Iraq (why would they, they are natural allies) in the other we have Iraqis defending their Muslim brothers from attack by the Despised US. I suspect that US and UK forces would be forced between a rock and a hard place. What do they then do when one of the dominoes falls? If Pakistan rises up (they get touchy enough about knighthoods, how do you think they will feel about another invasion), is Shiites in Saudi rise up?

Frankly, the world is in too delicate a state to take this sort of action.

"Further way, if terror attacks are launched against western nations in this hemisphere, Europe, or Israel, public resolve will only free our military to wage what would surely be the most devastating air attack in history."

The problem here is that, as far as I know, Air War has proven to be pretty poor at achieving the aims set for it. Witness Iraq, Lebanon, Britain, Germany, Japan (caveat for nukes which do work), etc, etc. It is constantly hyped as the big thing, but it just as consistently fails to deliver.

One could probably argue that Serbia is an exception, but still ground troops needed to be present for it to achieve anything.

In addition, the most devestating effect of the war would be the complete loss of Iran's oil to the world, along with whatever additional losses they could cause to other oil producers around the region. With world supply barely meeting demand very ugly times would be the result.

To be honest I have been feeling like it is 1914 for a while now. Powers seem to be moving inexorably towards what could prove to be a disasterous conflict for very unclear and misguided reasons.

And who'll still be laughing in his cave as the West pulls itself apart, alliances between the Great powers crumble, the filthy Kafirs in Iran are crushed, hatred of the US is spread far and wide, and the world economy tumbles into a new great depression?

Yes, that's right, the Bearded Git himself.

I just don't think that I could take the gloating.

Rafar,
If we bomb them to bits?

Let's refine that. If we were to hit Natanz, is that "bombing them to bits"? If they massed ground forces poised to invade Iraq and we took them out, is that "bombing them to bits"? And if we took either of those actions, why on Earth would we want to send ground forces in?

Bob,
Gentlemen, I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that it is the Iranian government's specific intention to provoke a war, but to do so in such a way as they might be able to blame others.

Exactly right. And there are ways we can contain them with military force, if need be, without giving them the all out war they seem to be pursuing.

Their economy is tanking, and the regime is extremely unpopular at home and growing more so each day. They continue down a path with nuclear development designed to provoke the ire and concern of western nations, and back that with genocidal rhetoric and threats.

Also right, and that can be leveraged. The likelihood that 67 million Iranians are going to prostrate themselves for Khameni and his legion of goons is low.

"If we were to hit Natanz, is that "bombing them to bits"? If they massed ground forces poised to invade Iraq and we took them out, is that "bombing them to bits"? And if we took either of those actions, why on Earth would we want to send ground forces in?"

You hit Natanz, they hit the straights, you blow up their refinery, they send a thousand SAMs into Iraq and blow up Congress, you bomb Tehran, Iraqi Shiites overrun a US army base.

It isn't the exact sequence of events I'm talking about here, just the option of escalation or not. If you bomb them you start the inexorable march of escalation and it will end up with, in the most optimistic scenarios, a crushed and destitute Iran which provides a breeding ground for just the sort of hatred and terrorism that lead to 911, along with a smashed world economy.

Or you could try not escalating and seeing if a better outcome is possible.

Or you could try not escalating and seeing if a better outcome is possible.

They've got quite a bit of say in that, don't you think?

And why on Earth would we bomb Tehran? If your scenario began to play out, we'd be taking out the SAM's, not the citizenry.

"They've got quite a bit of say in that, don't you think?"

Yes, they have. And they haven't done anything more than the US is doing to them. They're arming Shiites in Iraq? Well, so is the US. They're training and funding their political pets? Well, so is the US. They capture allied troops in blatantly outrageous circumstances, the US has captured Iranian diplomats (with or without scare quotes) in blatantly outrageous circumstances. As far as the Iranians are concerned the US and UK are running terrorist groups inside Iran, and I imagine that they are a little suspicious about those passenger jets full of Revolutionary Guards commanders that keep crashing on takeoff.

As far as I can tell, most alleged or actual Iranian moves have been counters to US actions, it is just that, from our perspective, it is much easier to view their actions as much more outrageous because they are against us.

What Iran hasn't done, as far as I can tell, is directly attack US forces. Similarly, the US hasn't directly attacked Iranian forces.

"And why on Earth would we bomb Tehran?"

In retaliation for the bombing of the US Congress by a truck bomb. In my wholly made up and not necessarily accurate prediction.

It isn't the 'how' that is important here, it is the process. You ramp up, they ramp up in response. Once you get in that cycle national pride, vanity of leaders and military necessity kick in and before you know it you're in the middle of a disasterous war. It isn't as if this sort of thing hasn't happened before.

As far as I can tell, most alleged or actual Iranian moves have been counters to US actions, it is just that, from our perspective, it is much easier to view their actions as much more outrageous because they are against us.

Nukes? Hezbollah? EFP's?

Are we the Lebanese? Are we the Iraqis?

What Iran hasn't done, as far as I can tell, is directly attack US forces.

Remember this?

In retaliation for the bombing of the US Congress by a truck bomb.
One, you're not going to truck bomb Congress, ever. It's physically impossible. Two, why would we then bomb Tehran? We act strategically, not emotionally.

It isn't the 'how' that is important here, it is the process. You ramp up, they ramp up in response. Once you get in that cycle national pride, vanity of leaders and military necessity kick in and before you know it you're in the middle of a disasterous war.

See Iraq, 1991-2003.

Rafar,

So who is the US equivalent of Hamas in your view? And using the word diplomats (with or without scare quotes) to refer to the Irbil six makes it sound like you're buying the Iranian line wholesale. Do you think those guys were diplomats? I don't.

The US captured Iranian insurgents actively promoting the killing of our soldiers in Iraq. In return the Iranians attempted a direct reprisal by infiltrating a US base and kidnapping (and later killing) five soldiers in Karbala.

Your effort at moral equivalence is thin.

Rafar,

And the US equivalent of Hamas is who exactly?

I think the moral equivalence is pretty thin. As for a direct attack on the US, see Karbala.

Sorry for the double post. The first one seemed to vanish for about 5 minutes then appear the moment I hit post on the shorter second draft.

Oh, Lord, Rafar, give it up. You were making sense, up to a point, but you really stepped in it when you said that Persians and Iraqis were "natural allies."

Um, you do know that Arabs and Persians don't like each other, yes? I mean, they really, really don't like each other. Think 12th-century England vs France.

No, they aren't anything remotely resembling "natural allies."

Your casual dismissal of all varieties of air offensive with a single wave of the hand betrays your own ignorance of the topic. First the examples presented represent a very wide variety of methods. Close air support isn't tactical bombming, which isn't "strategic" (AKA logistical) bombing. Mixing them up together in that manner is analagous to saying that a Colt M1911A1 is the same as a 88mm mortar, which is the same as a 105mm howitzer. After all, they all come out of a barrel, they all go "bang," right? They must be the same.

Air war comes in a wide variety of flavors, and demonstrates a wide variety of results. No one type is foolproof, in that it produces guaranteed results, although some types seem to be more effective than others. There is a running gag in the Army: "B-52 bombs are very, very accurate. They always hit the ground..." :) On the other hand, the BUFFs can be quite accurate, depending on circumstances.

One size doesn't fit all. Since that seems to be part of your personal diplomatic preferences, I'm surprised you managed to swallow such a crassly inaccurate generalization about air war.

Your later comments make it clear that you've bought into the Iranian hype. If you recall, we very frequently saw a a laundry-list similar to yours before the Iraq invasion, and list failed to pan out as well. You also, BTW, seem to be reducing CY's intelligent & reasoned analysis to "bomb the buggers." But then, you do seem to have a poor grasp of what bombing is, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

It seems to me that your position is an excellent example of the old saying that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." True, but that's only because the incompetent wait until the last resort as a matter of policy. You are so fixated on what might happen that you have paralyzed yourself into doing ... nothing. I'm sure the kleptocracy in Tehran would love seeing the West sit on its collective thumbs, just as the Brits did with regards to their captured sailors.

CY, on the other hand, has presented a measured, reasoned response to the situation. I think it's a rather good plan, and I hope Washington has something along those lines in mind.

But then, I also think we need a better source than the Sun before getting all fired up, as well... ;)

"Your effort at moral equivalence is thin."

I make no attempt at moral equivalence. I couldn't care less about morality in this matter.

"Do you think those guys were diplomats? I don't."

I don't know, and neither do you. What I do know is that the Kurdish authorities screamed to heaven about it. Do you think that this was because the Kurds are supporting Iranian insurgents?

"The US captured Iranian insurgents actively promoting the killing of our soldiers in Iraq."

You suppose. I have yet to see any solid evidence to support that asssertion.

"In return the Iranians attempted a direct reprisal by infiltrating a US base and kidnapping (and later killing) five soldiers in Karbala."

Again, you suppose, largely based on the reasoning, as far as I have seen, that since it was too difficult for Iraqi insurgents to carry out it must have been the Iranians.

What is thin here is the evidence you present.

"No, they aren't anything remotely resembling "natural allies."

All Iraqis, no certainly not. The lot running the country, the ones in political parties which were sheltered in Iran for the Saddam years, the ones with militias that were openly trained in Iran for those years, SIIC, Dawa, Badr. Those guys are most definitely Iran's allies.

Have you not been paying attention to your history?

"Since that seems to be part of your personal diplomatic preferences, I'm surprised you managed to swallow such a crassly inaccurate generalization about air war."

Well, try to suppress the Iranians with air strikes and we'll see what we get, shan't we.

Dive in by all means. Just don't be surprised when it goes horribly wrong.

I would think if Iran had any helicopters across the border they would have been dispensed with rather quickly. The Iranian qud are our cia-green berets and navy seals and even Rambo (scary thought isn't it.) and like the old KGB, they have One qud for every number of soldiers, as well as their own SS units . They can operate solo and undetected and are very familiar with Iraqi soil ever since their highly effective and bloody counteroffensive against Sadam Hussein. (people forget the tens of thousands of iranians tied together as soviet/japanese style human assault waves. (Tied to prevent someone from backing off) We act as if they shouldn't be there. All these areas have, in addition to the high tech mines of today, also mines from before the U.S./British expedition came upon the scene. I hardly consider this an "alarming" development.
I see an armistice coming soon, much like the Korean war. Patience is the better part of valor,
Now I really hope we do not abandon the Kurds who are the equivalent of the Vietnam Montangyard (I hope I spelled that right). I believe we can spread stability outwards from there, by concentrationg our resources/assistance the same way Israel is attempting to stabilize the west bank and rekindle relations while Hamas is pigeonholed in Gaza. At least with the Kurds we have a loyal friend and have a better chance of success. Kudos to our forces establishing tribal treaties against Alqaeda in I raq. It is making a difference. Like any good cooking it takes time.

Hey All,

Here's the plan. Support the Iranian Divestiture Project, then heave a few grenades in the last functioning gas refinery. Then use the force projection of our two carrier groups in the Gulf to shut down any new gas stock imports. The Regime will tank in a matter of days.

RBT

Folks get so squishy when you discuss the nuke option, invoking the 'daisy' ad that did in Goldwater's hopes for the Presidency, and crying about all the toasted little children and women.

Well, how many did we toast in our own city of Las Vegas? We set those things off around there all the time. For a long time.

No, targeted, surgical nuclear strikes are a perfectly sound option.

A few corrections/comments, Rafar:

You hit Natanz,

which we do at will, repeating as necessary, sustaining 0-2% casualties (if the Israelis do it, 0-5% casualties) per strike;

they hit the straights,

Which they can do just about once, with limited effectiveness, suffering 50-75% casualties per strike (and it gets worse for them once they have done it and lose the advantage of surprise);

which leads to destabilization of their own economy as their own crude goes through the Straits;

which in theory angers other OPEC Straits-users and customers, leading to pressure to make it all stop - you may like to think all the pressure will be on the US; it ain't necessarily so;

you blow up their refinery, they send a thousand SAMs into Iraq and blow up Congress,

A little confusion here - you mean the US Congress? But to continue:

we blow up or capture their refineries and wellheads, their economy and society grind to a halt: no POL, no modern warfare. Let them all come with swords if they like. Surely money for SAMs will be curtailed, and they will be wanted for home defense anyway;

how do you blow up Congress with SAMs;

blowing up Congress would result in nuclear annihilation of Iranian civilization, which I think has been accepted here to be an effective tactic - it wouldn't seem so brutal juxtaposed against pictures of a ruined Capitol (certainly not to Congresscritters);

you bomb Tehran, Iraqi Shiites overrun a US army base.

We already skipped "bombing Tehran," and all the stops would be yanked out anyway;

define the "base" to be overrun - do you mean an outpost with six guys in three Humvees, or a real base? Barring a surprise attack, the latter is impossible (see Khe Sanh; see MOAB; see Sheriff ADS);

with Iran in ruins, remember, the pressure, influence, money, etc. supporting the enemy in Iraq diminishes greatly;

Also, as the naked power of the US is shown, resistance will diminish. I'm afraid the example of the Ottoman Empire does not illustrate that the Middle East cannot be ruled by a sufficient amount of force.

NOBODY in Iraq thinks that AQ will save them from the US. What people may think is that AQ is more likely than the US to kill and maim them in the short term (or more so than the US is to save them), so should be appeased. Were this calculus to be overset, no AQ could buy breakfast in Iraq.

"A few corrections/comments, Rafar:"

You don't need to correct it, I already said that it was a made up and not necessarily accurate scenario.

"how do you blow up Congress with SAMs;"

Yes, that is a confusing sentence, sorry. I meant sent SAMs into Iraq and, as a separate matter, attacked congress with some sort of suicide attack.

I note that none of these suggestions deals with the potential for worldwide depression due to oil shock, or with the predictable ire of the Russians and Chinese.

I also note that your response encompasses the nuclear strike that I suggested was one of the two options and as such merely confirms my point.

One simple question. Why can't we just carpet bomb Iran? You know...beat them into submission. These guys are financing the suicide bombers over in Iraq. Get to the source.

Kram
www.FuzzySnake.com

All of the comments here are great, however, President Bush is really Jimmy Carter in wolves clothing. I am a 58 year old retired USAF CMSgt who is ready to go to IRAN/IRAQ with a rifle if necessary but Bush is a paper tiger. This Country will watch and do nothing to IRAN and eventually come home beaten and broke.

Heck, here at home we can't even control our own government, the LIBS prevent us from defending our own soil from illegals comng in here. How does anyone ever think we would go against IRAN with all the weak kneed so-called representatives calling the shots. IRAN knows this too, they ain't stupid!!! IRAN will get away with anything they do in IRAQ.

The only ones with the ????? to do anything is Israel and they are being held back by the good ole' USA too.

This is such a frustration watching this all unfold

Yeah, Purple Avenger, I want us to lose. Me, a guy with two family members in country. Me, a guy from a military family. Me, a veteran, I want us to lose.

At least you've finally decided to drop the silly fiction that you're "not a liberal"...since that's exactly the demographic YOU targeted YOUR remark at, and in stating the above clearly identified with.

You can say you don't want us to lose, but its pretty clear you're not cheering for a win either.