What to do about Iran

I think a military option needs to be considered more seriously.

A few nuclear bombs well placed might change their opinion on obtaining them.

Tell them to stop enriching uranium NOW or we will drop the bomb on them.

Give them a deadline.

Do nothing?

Is Iran doing nothing?

The Iranians, after their morning prayers, run out into the streets and chant DEATH TO AMERICA in mass!!!

This is a war cry, not only free speech!

They have been doing this every single day for over 25 years.

And we are going to let these radical nuts have nukes? We are going to trust them with nukes?

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOULD IRAN HESITATE TO USE A BOMB ON AMERICA?

Of course not!

The bombs the USA dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly turned Japan into a democracy rather fast didn't it?

How many more Americans would have died in the war with Japan if we had not dropped the bomb?

The bomb saves lives in the long run.

Iran needs a wake up call absolutely before they get nukes.

What's a revolution? Is it what you did in Iraq?

If they become a clear and present danger to the US, I believe we have the necessary tools to defend ourselves and eliminate whatever threat they pose.

It is time to stop pointing fingers and start pointing missiles.

A nuclear Iran CANNOT happen...

Regardless of your nut case talking points and pure politics Iran needs to be stopped.

Once Iran becomes nuclear and begins their campaign to "conquer the world" and "wipe israel off the map" how many NUCLEAR bombs will they set off before they are finally stopped?

This cannot be allowed to become even a remote possibility.

You probably couldn't understand this if Allah (PBUH) himself came over and slapped you over the head with it.

Iran is not looking for peaceful nuclear energy and if you believe this than Allah (PBUH) spits on you.

Before thinking about what to do with Iran, I would say you must start worrying about the murders in your schools. You are the only place of the world such terrible things happen with such a frequency.

If your government can't manage to control this insane situation, they are not the apropriate ones to "liberate Iraq" or "disarm Iran". To talk in a folkish way, if they attack Iran, except the murders they are going to do there, they are going to rape your army and economics in a much worse way than they did with Iraq. I hope all the ones who think like you, will realise this before it is too late for your whole nation.

Straw man...

And Iran's training suicide bombers are clearly ethical?

What does PBUH mean?

What exactly do you think will happen if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?

Peace Be Unto Him

Has nothing to do with Peanut Butter

A related question is what will happen if every country that wants nuclear and biological weapons, now and in the future, is allowed to develop and perfect them until eventually dozens of countries have them. I do not believe that every entity that seeks WMD presents exactly the same level of danger, but, rather, that some countries present a greater risk of mis-using them.

Peace be upon him

Darn.

I am not going to anwser to your insults, since the foul language is the weapon of the weak and the ones without arguments.

They are insane things happening under the current regime of Iran, I don't deny this. But they are more insane things happening under the regime of Bush. A goverment like the one of Bush is not appropriate for solving the problems of Middle East because they are destructive and extremely dangerous for the whole world if they do. I said all I have to say. I don't expect to change your mind - buy instead of insulting me you can go and help the army of your god-guided president as a volunteer for the upcoming war in Iran. You will have to kill many suicide bombers* and burn down many terrorist hideouts**. It is not difficult, it is like playing a video game .


*Suicide bombers: Women and children in the language of Bush.
**Terrorist hideouts: Residential buildings of muslims, in the language of Bush.

All options need to remain on the table for the moment. Personally, I believe that the U.S. should not make first use of nuclear weapons except in exceptional circumstances. That means almost never, and I believe that a U.S. nuclear first strike is near the bottom of the options list for the NCA.

If the Iranian nuclear weapons program can not be seriously setback by covert or conventional means, I think that the probability of a very, very destructive war rises almost to inevitable. I don't believe that Iran will be influenced by mere threats, reason, or sanctions. They will continue their quest for nuclear superiority, and will use that capability in ways that will leave the U.S., Israel and the World no alternative but total war against Iran.

Iran, with nuclear weapons capability, will become even more overtly radical. They will attempt to coerce and blackmail other oil producers in the region to adopt policies set by the Mullahs. I expect that they will attempt to "close" the Gulf to any flag carrier that doesn't meet their demands. The probability of a nuclear attack on Israel would go from zero to between 50-50 and certainty. Every indicator supports the idea that Iran, once nuclear armed, will adopt policies that will make war, nuclear war specifically, almost inevitable.

Because Iran is a supply base from which radical international Islamic terrorists are armed and inspired, we might expect an increase in terrorist activity secretly sponsored by Iran's rulers. Though Iran's nuclear weapons are likely to be large and heavy, the potential for an Islamic terrorist organization to acquire a nuclear weapon (presumably delivered by sea to an American or European port), also rises to intolerable levels.

If Iran is prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapons arsenal without recourse to nuclear weapons in the immediate future, it is worth serious consideration. The number of Iranian casualties should be kept to the minimum, and no extended combat operations should be taken. If it cost 25,000 to 150,000 Iranian casualties, that would be acceptable compared to the loss of several millions throughout the region if a general war is eventually taken against a nuclear armed Iran. How many casualties is it worth to avoid the almost certain 1-10 million lives that might be lost within the next 5-20 years? This is a tough decision, aren't you glad you aren't responsible for making it?

That's the policy makers choice, and it is a gamble no matter what the final decision is. The decision is also a lose-lose situation. An attack now, or in the near future, would rouse the condemnation around the world and might harden the determination of our enemies to an increased tempo of terrorist attack. A preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear program might fail, and leave us with an even more dangerous adversary. Oh yes, lets not forget that all the casualties of such an attack would be regarded as martyrs even by some of our own people. Inside the United States the political fallout of such an attack in the next two years would be devastating to the Republican Party at the polls.

On the other hand, a decision to let the UN handle the situation would be equally disastrous. Iran is not all that vulnerable to sanctions, and sanctions may serve to accelerate both the Iranian nuclear program AND oil deals with the PRC. Iran's rulers will have bluffed their way through the ante, and will be encouraged to throw their weight around some more in hopes of furthering their objectives. Support and shipments of arms and munitions to terrorist organizations will increase, leading to higher risk levels both in the region and around the world. Iran would be seen as a victor in the struggle against the Great Satan and all the little satans of Western Civilization, and so Iran's leadership would be dangerously enhanced. The tempo of violence in the region might well increase in number and seriousness. The number of casualties from terrorist operations might easily equal the number of casualties related to a conventional attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. Thats in the short run.

In the long run, the probability of regional nuclear war in the next 5-20 years becomes a real concern. The world's economy would be shaken to its foundations if Iran interdicted Gulf oil. How willing is Europe and Asia (the most dependent upon oil from the Persian Gulf), to have their petroleum supply cut by over 75%? If an Iranian nuke exploded in the Thames, how many British and French (fallout pattern) would die?

How many would die in Israel in the wake of even a single Hiroshima-like nuclear fire? Would Pakistan and India be drawn into a nuclear exchange as a result of all out war with Iran? If there was a Pakistan/India sideshow, the number of casualties JUST within those two unfortunate countries alone could top 25,000,000 people dead. How many Iranians would die in the multiple nuclear retaliatory strikes launched by the United States and others? The answer is that an unchecked Iran at this hour, might easily result in a real catastrophe later with literally multiple millions of lives lost. If that happened, the decision to forebear would be condemned as irresponsible.

Lose/Lose ... We elect Presidents to make those kind of decisions. Given the uncertain and risky nature of major policy decisions, our elected executive deserves the support and backing of the People. The conditions that led to this particular situation is not the fault of any one administration, but is the result of many conscientious decisions made over a long period of time. President Clinton failed to nip the DPRK nuclear program in the bud, and we will now have to deal with the result for years to come and at greatly increased stakes. Should Clinton be "blamed" for making the wrong decision? NO. No. no. no. He made the best decision he could given the circumstances, but he was wrong. Now this administration faces an even more dangerous situation with Iran. Whatever this administration decides ... I will support.

Bush needs people like you. Desperately!

Perhaps, but I don't think so. The President continues to have the support of most of the Party. It is a lame-duck administration, and so it isn't unusual for support to diminish as we get into the new campaign season. Without doubt, there is not now, nor has there ever been any support for the adminstration from the most leftish elements of the Democratic Party. No change there. The question probably comes down to what the vast majority of Americans think. The self-appointed elites of the large urban area may be even more anti-administration than they were six years ago, but the bulk of America resides in the heartland, in the South and in those areas Bush has always had strong support. I think his administration still retains the support of those regions and legions of politically quiet Americans.

In the end it is immaterial how anyone feels about the question. The decision is a Constitutional responsiblity of the sitting President, and he will make the decision he feels is best for the nation. He might be wrong, but he alone will have to judge whether he did his duty or not until the judgement of history is made a hundred years or more from now.

According to article 1 of said Constitution, the responsibility to declare war should belong to the Congress ... not the president.

The Congress has the duty to stand up to the president if he plunges the country in to a more disasterous war than either Iraq or Vietnam.

I don't think even Bush is this stupid, and I don't think the American people would stand for the inevitably costly mess-- in lives and money, that would ensue.

Ashrman GREAT post!

The question is not at this point if, but when and how...

A ground invasion by some analysts has been nearly ruled out.

Iran has 1 million suicide bombers ready to go in case of a ground invasion.

This is above and beyond the 900 thousand in their military.

These 1 million have "plastic keys to paradise" they wear around their necks issued to them by their loving and peaceful government. The government in Iran has instructed the one million suicide bombers to kill someone on the battlefield and steal their weapons

Our ground troops are spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is.

We have image issues in Europe and the Muslim world including the largely ineffective and bought off UN and Iraq itself are tottering on mutiny against the US. New polls say 70 percent of Iraqis think it is ok to kill Americans.

Afghanistan is starting to boil up.

Iran has buried their many nuclear facilities under six feet of concrete and we do not even know where the majority of these facilities are located. They have also surrounded their "peaceful" nuclear program with anti-aircraft guns. These facilities are said to be mobile and capable of being moved on a moments notice.

The US is considering sanctions against Russia for their continued defiance in selling Iran modern weaponry.

Iran is too large of an area for an effective ground campaign considering also, the one million suicide bombers brainwashed by the mullahs.

Iran has dreams of conquering the world not living peacefully with it. Just one atomic bomb could mean real devastation to our troops in the region.

Iran is not bound by nuclear treaties and they would not hesitate for one second to do the unthinkable.

Time for more shock and awe George...

I say pump billions into an Iranian overthrow, this is chump change to the US. Send special forces assassins over to decapitate their leadership and let the "cards" fall where they may. As with Iraq, cripple the Iranian infrastructure to the point that it will take years to regain their former evil dictatorial regime. Take over their oil fields to stop the flow of money to fund terrorism and Hezbollah, then turn public opinion against the old regime through humanitarian blackmail.

ALL options are on the table...