Bombing them will only add conviction to the radical anti-American right wing parties already in power. They'll hate us too much to revolt. They'll be too busy trying to get back at us for destroying their country.

OR we could wait and let the moderate population intigrate into the existing government structure and slowly transition away from radicalism...


By every stretch of the imagination, it's easier to wait for option number 2. It's even cheaper cause then we don't have to pay for the bombs...

This was happening through the late 1980's and early 1990's period.

Unfortunately, the US Government doesn't know a good thing when they see it and decided they should 'help' the Iranian reformers with US dollars, US support and US covert action.

The Iranian 'reform' faction has been pretty much destroyed because of this and the 'conservative' (i.e. anti-US reactionaries) has been on the rise ever since.

US foreign policy has never taken a 'slow but sure' approach to anything.  They always favor short-term policies that cause maximum long-term problems.  Iran is already a perfect example of this phenomena long before the Bush Administration was sworn in.

Er - you don't think they hate us already?

Well, if you bomb the hell out of their military bases they will learn respect - and possibly even follow Europe on the path to Enlightenment. Stop treating them like a civilization - because they aren't one as you understand it.

While dropping by to read a little, much of the same arguments most typically presented by the posters who continue the discussions related to their pro and con support for those I
refer to as the Israeli, Zionists, those who have the political power there, just to share from one of my favorite columnists who often calls it right. While so will demean a post that
comes from the Atlantic Free Press, it's worth a few minutes to read Floyd's column. Floyd points out Iran is unquestionably a target in conflict with the title of this thread.

Feeding Moloch: Last Barriers to War on Iran Come Down           
Written by Chris Floyd      
Saturday, 03 May 2008
by Chris Floyd

Anyone who thinks the Bush Administration does not intend to attack Iran either has rocks in the head or their head in the sand. The warmongers have raised their cacophonous howling of threat and accusation against Iran to entirely new levels. Every day now, some major Administration figure makes fiery charges that Iran is directly, deliberately killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq: a clear casus belli, if it were true, which it almost certainly is not.

(That is, it a clear cause for war in the perverted logic of Establishment discourse, which ignores the fact that U.S. forces have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, and the fact the Bush Administration itself supports the same violent sectarian Shiite factions that Iran does in Iraq, factions responsible for killing thousands of innocent people. What's more, Bush and his beloved General Petraeus are now directly paying extremist Sunni factions, including members of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who are likewise engaged in murder, repression and "ethnic cleansing," like their Bush-supported Shiite counterparts. George W. Bush and his minions and handlers have deliberately, knowingly, purposely created a slaughterhouse in Iraq, and they keep it going 24/7 with the fresh meat of murdered innocents. This is the true context of the Administration's charges against Iran: mass murderers accusing others of malevolent intent.)

The latest and most explicit salvo of warmongering comes from CIA honcho Michael Hayden, who finally crossed the red line that Bush officials have been tip-toeing up to for months: the charge that Iran's top government leadership is directly involved in "facilitating the killing of Americans in Iraq." As late as last week, the nation's top military officer, Admiral Michael Mullen, said there was "no smoking gun proof" that Iran's leadership was involved in the alleged Iranian support for attacks on American forces. And Petraeus, in his many Tehran-baiting broadsides over the past few months, has likewise always stopped short of this war-triggering accusation.

But now Hayden — obviously with White House support — has stepped boldly over that line. In an appearance at Kansas State University, he made it crystal clear:
"It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq," Hayden said. "Just make sure there's clarity on that."

In the weeks to come, the Administration will be rolling out more product along these lines, as the AP report notes:

Military commanders in Baghdad are expected to roll out evidence of that support soon, including date stamps on newly found weapons caches showing that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.
Saint Petraeus himself is also preparing a report on alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq. (Aside from Tehran's intimate ties with Bush's own allies in Iraq, of course.) No doubt the word from this sterling officer — universally respected despite his nearly unbroken record of egregious failure — will be treated as holy writ by the "bipartisan foreign policy establishment," including the two "progressive" Democratic presidential candidates, one of which has already called for the "obliteration" of Iran, while the other stresses constantly that "all options remain on the table" against Tehran.

The complete text of this very relevant column can be accessed on the link.

 http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3844/81

Peisithanatos, while I don't post here often, I do read a lot. A site I check often is vetvoice.com  .  Sometimes, those who have been there and done that, at least in Iraq and Afghanistan, share a different perspective than many of the brave keyboard warriors who are always ready to go to war anywhere the current Administration of war mongers and
war profiteers says is right, so long as they aren't those who have to go.  And after those comments, this vet and I both agree with you. Not only a tough target militarily, but a
tough one IMHO to convince the rest of the planet, to include China, Russia and even those in Europe that it's right, though I have no doubt Israel will go as they've been armed and
readied by the U.S. for years even though Iran has no nukes and they lie about theirs there would be no hesitation to join the U.S. in a pre-emptive strike.

An Attack On Iran Will Not Be Limited In Scope
by: dm
Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EDT

(From the diaries - promoted by Brandon Friedman)

CBS is reporting that the US is preparing new plans to attack Iran.  The plans are ostensibly designed to counter Iranian influence in Iraq.  The article implies that targets will primarily consist of locations that are related to Iranian activities in Iraq, such as IRGC command centers and weapon manufacturing facilities.
I think the media needs to wake up to what an attack on Iran would really look like.  Even assuming that the objective of the attack is limited to reducing Iranian exportation of weapons and training to Iraq, the attack itself would not be limited.  Remember, Iran possesses a fairly substantial defensive and retaliatory capability. 

First of all, any air attack would involve strikes on Iranian air defense and communications nodes, as well as on airfields housing military aircraft.  This is necessary to protect our aircraft.  Political and military centers of gravity would also be attacked in order to disrupt and delay the Iranian response.

Second, Iranian naval forces possess conventional surface ships, fast attack craft, sophisticated submarines, naval mines, and anti-ship cruise missiles.  Therefore, Iran can disrupt shipping (both commercial and military) in the Arabian Gulf and possibly the Arabian Sea.  This is a crucial supply route for US forces and for global oil distribution.  The entire Iranian naval apparatus would have to be destroyed.

Third, Iran possesses ballistic missiles which could be used to attack US forces and friendly nations throughout southwest Asia.  The US would have to seek out and destroy these missiles.  Additionally, US forces (probably the Navy) would have to operate in the Arabian Gulf and elsewhere to provide a defense against any missiles that leave the ground.

Last, but certainly not least, we can't leave out the Iranian nuclear program.  Whether or not you believe that the program is designed to produce a weapon, the Bush Administration is obviously not going to risk seriously pissing off a country that builds nukes.  Facilities related to this program will have to be destroyed.

The bottom line is that it is exceedingly unlikely that any US commander is going to implement a series of limited strikes and risk the substantial possibility of serious retaliation.  An attack on Iran will almost certainly be sustained, violent, and broad in scope.  To suggest anything else is misleading.

I should probably note that I have no personal knowledge of the contents of any US military plan to attack Iran.  What's written above is logical conjecture.


This VetVoice post contains confirming hyperlinks that can be accessed on the link.


http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1144
 
 

Fredledingue, when looking at the possibility of a mutual attack on Iran, it is my tendency to take a look at the internal political circumstances in Israel.  Bibi Netanyahu's views on this issue have long been know.  There is no question where he is concerned. I've sure his view have changed since the article from 2006.

Netanyahu: ‘It’s 1938, Iran is Germany’

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=2015

Next for those who might not have noticed, Petraeus and Crocker have been in London conferring with Brown and today from DEBKAfile there are two notable pieces of information
quite possibly related if you bother to read, most especially if you are aware of Netanyahu's continued rise in Israeli political circumstances while Olmert may be in the process of
being taken down. a

Who Put “Deep Throat” up as Olmert’s Nemesis?
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
May 3, 2008, 9:47 PM (GMT+02:00)

What brought the unnamed accuser from America to the door of the Israeli police at this time? According to an Israeli paper, he laid before police investigators strong evidence of a new and grave corruption charge against prime minister Ehud Olmert, the fifth case opened against him thus far – all predating his two-year term as prime minister.
The attorney general Menahem Mazuz found the material substantial enough to order the police to question the prime minister under caution within 48 hours, raising one of the many questions on which a court gag order has condemned the public to ignorance.

Israeli politicians are in a dither but treading on eggs until they too find out what it is all about, why now and whether Olmert can weather the new scandal.
Until Saturday, May 3, the government rested on a slender majority of 67 out of 120 Knesset members, of which Olmert’s Kadima holds 27. Some members of his senior coalition partner, Labor, began demanding his suspension. But Labor’s leader, defense minister Ehud Barak, sent his wishes to the prime minister to come clean out of the probe and denied holding consultations with his advisers about the party’s next step. Olmert cannot afford to let Labor’s 19 members quit.

A junior coalition partner, the Pensioners party, responded to the looming scandal by three of its seven lawmakers splitting off and crossing the floor to the opposition. They have thrown in their lot with the ex-Russian Arkady Gaydamak, giving him a foothold in the Knesset and a boost to his political ambitions without having to fight an election.
The Olmert government was stripped down to a fragile majority of 64.

In the view of DEBKAfile’s political sources, Olmert’s anonymous accuser was put up to opening his can of worms by a party seeking to cloud Israel’s forthcoming 60th anniversary celebrations to which a glittering gallery of invited foreign guests, led by US president George W. Bush, is invited.
That party, whether domestic or foreign, wants to get rid of Ehud Olmert.

The step may connect with the battle Israel has fought to debunk the National Intelligence Estimate in which 16 US agencies concluded that Iran gave up nuclear weapons development in 2003.
The NIE’s purpose was to hold President Bush back from exercising America’s military option against Iran before he leaves the White House. Israel’s strenuous battle to devalue the estimate put that option back on the table in March. Olmert may have trodden on the toes of powerful American interests.

The anonymous informer against the prime minister turned up a few days after disclosures about Syria’s shattered North Korean reactor, which were clearly coordinated by the White House and the Israeli government.

Add to this the impatience in parts of the US administration with Olmert’s foot-dragging on his promised breakthrough in peace talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas by the end of 2008. Saturday night, May 3, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice started her 15th visit in two years to Jerusalem and Ramallah with little hope of progress.
Impatience on another score was demonstrated by transport minister Shaul Mofaz, former chief of staff and defense minister. After leading Israel’s strategic talks with US officials in Washington, he issued two dire warnings.

One was that Iran may attain command of uranium technology before the end of the year – which means the ability to produce nuclear bombs by next March or April.
This warning carries a critical time frame for an American or Israel military attack: June, July or August, 2008. The window of action is then narrowed by the fall and approaching winter. After that it will be too late
In another speech, Mofaz warned that the Olmert-Livni talks with Palestinian leaders will inevitably force Israel to strip itself of its most vital strategic national assets.
The connection between the two warnings is obvious. Iranian leaders make no secret of their plans to eradicate the Jewish state or their sponsorship of Hamas and Hizballah, which openly acclaim their dedication to the same goal.

Mofaz’s warnings recalled the almost forgotten rhetoric of past Israeli prime ministers.
Israeli history has ruled that none lasted long when they came close to giving up vital security assets. Shimon Peres survived for a year in 1996 after his move to continue the concessions made under the Oslo Framework Accords; Ehud Barak was toppled in 2000 as head of government and defense minister when he shrank from fighting the Palestinian uprising and sought an accommodation with Yasser Arafat instead.

Olmert is said to be on the point of giving up parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and, according to a message carried by Turkish go-betweens to the Syrian ruler, offering to hand over the Golan as well.

The American whistleblower may have been sent - not just as Olmert’s private nemesis but to cut short his “peace talks” before he and foreign minister Tzipi Livni give too much away, and also as a wake-up call for action against Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hizballah.


And then there is this. 


British secret service seeks Mossad update on Iran’s nuclear program
May 4, 2008, 6:33 PM (GMT+02:00)

The head of the UK’s MI6, Sir John Scarlett will visit Israel later this month for an update by Mossad chief Meir Dagan on Iran’s nuclear program and other subjects of common interest. The London Times reports that it is understood Israel has made a breakthrough “on intelligence gathering within Iran.”

DEBKAfile reports Israeli transport minister Shaul Mofaz maintained in America last week that Iran may attain full command of the uranium enrichment process before the end of 2008. Israeli officials have consistently challenged the conclusion reached by the US National Intelligence last December that Iran halted its covert military nuclear program in 2003. They have warned while the NIE report tied US hands on a military option, the Iranian program is advancing apace.

The British-Israeli intelligence-sharing process is described by Israeli officials as a “strategic dialogue.”

IMHO, much can be learned by putting together the various aspects of Israeli actions with those of the Bush Administration and their primary "coalition partners" from Britain in the
attach on Iraq, to try to make a more educated guess, and that's all that is possible, related to an upcoming attack on Iran.

Have a read of:

http://www.envirosecurity.org/ges/TheUtilityOfForceByGeneralSirRupertSmith.pdf

Smith is my old boss, BTW.

If you use your civilian population is a means of combat, then they will be targeted (not our choice, but yours).

War has changed in the age of mass media. But you do not know war unless you've been there (get off your Playstations and Hollywoodized dramas). Pick up your comrade's shattered body and then you will have learnt the realities.

Cass

Nothing realy new in these two articles.
The NIE report saying Iran has dropped military nuclear program in 2003 is irrelevant since everybody know that they are currently purifying uranium in a way that could lead to an atom bomb.
Who care what is the officila explanation of the current work at Natanz if in the facts they can build nuclear warheads?

Normal that Israel is worried and want some action before it's too late.
Next are the oil exporting arab states. They should be much more plausible target than Israel (which is a symbolic place only) but so far there is no issue between the arabs and Iran.
(Note that just before Saddam invaded Kuwait there was no issue neither.)

One think I'm certain is that Iran will be attacked IF the continue their uranium enrichement program.
That's a certainty and everything depends on that.

Not on what zionists or neocon would like to do in their dream.

If Iran decide tomorrow to definetly terminate their uranium enrichement program, there won't be any worry about war anymore.