Captain's Quarters -

you're wrong Cap'n, not everyone concedes Iran is fostering death and destruction in Iraq. The Democrats certainly don't concede that Iran is doing anything negative at all. Most dangerous thing they have is a kite that may have gotten away.

As a matter of fact, General Betray Us said they are meddling so it can't be true.

So if we taped it to the nose of a nuclear bomb and shot it back at them with a note that "we found this and thought you might like it bac", would turn-about be fair play?

Ahh..but that brings us to the knotty question then.What can America do,at this moment,to stop
Iran from threatening our interests?And,please,
Nukes are out of the question.
Could we train enough Peshmurgah to stage a
rapid advance along the Caspian in the North,
while dismantling the Iranian oil production
center to the south?
Would Turkey allow us to use an armed,trained
Kurdish force so close to there own unstable
Kurdish population?

So what the H*ll are we going to do about it? Eleven more US soldiers wounded on top of the hundereds that have been killed and wounded by the direct, wilfull action of the mullahs. How many more American soldiers are going to be killed or wounded before we decide to act?

I think the best approach with Iran would be to follow a strategy similar to the first Gulf War. Simply eviscerate all of their military power within the first 100 days, and then just call the event over and walk away.

In fact, it would not require any form of ground involvement – just air work.

That would essentially leave their government open to over-throw from within – and that would happen. Unlike Gulf I, however, we should be more careful to first arm an insurgency within the state of Iran that will take over once the current power is left defenseless.

I’m not a military expert. I’m guessing some big heads at the Pentagon have already figured this out. I think it’s actually going to happen before November. I’ll support it.

Basically, the faster we go after Iran, the faster all this will be over. Cheney is right. Let’s do this.

John Steele,

Ah, ah, ah! Iran hasn't killed anybody. Remember: all those US soldiers were killed to make money for Halliburton because Bush Lied (TM). At least, that's what the left will say, along with:

"Iran? What have they got to do with anything? If they ARE involved (and why should we believe military people; they work for Bush and would lie for him, just like Petraeus), it's only because they resent our imperialist presence in the Middle East and our efforts to inflict democracy on the Iraqis. Iran MAY simply be providing those freedom fighters in Iraq with the means to oppose US aggression."

NahnCee,

I like the way you think!

Eric,

Good idea (I like NahnCee's better; sorry). Libs like to whine that our military is totally tied down in Iraq, and that we can't invade Iran. OK; why should we? Let's just turn the Navy and Air Force loose, wreck the place, and let the Iranians sort things out. Hey, maybe the 67th Ghost or whatever will show up in the smoldering rubble to help 'em out!

13th Iman vs. the Ghost of Curtis LeMay. I know where I'd bet MY money!

OK, OK, I've had my fun. In all seriousness, I don't want to bomb Iran. I have nothing against the Iranian people (having known a few), who are anyway at the mercy of their lunatic leaders. THEY are the ones who need to understand that THEY PERSONALLY will pay a heavy price for continued meddling in Iraq and killing US troops. Slamming a 2000 lbs satellite-guided bomb or Tomahawk into Ahmadinnahjacket's presidential palace should send a very clear message. It worked with Khadaffi in the '80s.

I hereby declare war on Iran.

Please note: On September 12, 2007, Eric declared war on Iran, beating President Bush to the punch by well over two weeks.

I'd like to finish my vacation in Egypt before this crap hits the fan.

Christ, I can't get a break.

It didn't require any rocket fragments to convince me that Iran is meddling in Iraq on their chosen side in the civil war. This does, however, beg two important questions. First, *who* specifically in Iran is behind it? Just saying "Iran" is like just saying "The Jews" about any sitution. Is it government approved and sponsored? Is it being done by private religious driven factions? Terrorist elements working from inside Iran with or without the knowledge and consent of the government? Foreign elements working from inside Iran? Seems like these would be important things to know.

Second, even if you can determine the answer to the first question, what to do about it? Are we going to "liberate" Iran like we did Iraq? Start a war? Where will you get the troops for this war? The overly simplistic answer given by a couple of the hot headed commenters here of either nuking them or launch a massive air strike to "vaporize" their military are unrealistic in the extreme. And starting a war with Iran will, as so many analysts have already pointed out, be nothing like knocking over the paper army that Iraq had. You may choose to attack with Air strikes, but unlike air strikes in the past, Iran has many, many American targets of opportunity just over the border in Iraq, conveniently enough.

With the constant reports of how overextended our forces are already in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we to seriousl considering launching a *third* war right now in the middle east? Remember also that Iran has a lot more friends than Iraq did (having been virtually isolated for quite some time when we went in.) And some of these friends are either powerful or influential in the global theatre, including Germany just to name one.

You all may want to rethink the cowboy mentality on this one.

Hugh says:
I'd like to finish my vacation in Egypt before this crap hits the fan.

Christ, I can't get a break.

Eric says:
You could make some of your own breaks by not vacationing in places like Egypt. Reminds me of all the people vacationing in Lebanon about a year ago. My wife was just reading this and said, "he went on vacation in Egypt? What an idiot."

Seriously, though, have you heard of Key West? I'll say a prayer for your safe return, and I hope you're having fun. I would like to go there someday, but I'm a little smarter than you (just kidding.)

Jazz: The overly simplistic answer given by a couple of the hot headed commenters here of either nuking them or launch a massive air strike to "vaporize" their military are unrealistic in the extreme.

Why? Oh, I agree with the "no nukes" thing (despite my tongue in cheek earlier comment), but I think recent history makes it quite clear that a massive US air campaign can do massive damage to an opponent, almost to the level of "vaporizing" them. Remember Desert Storm? The US-led air campaign over Serbia? The air campaign that preceeded OIF? I think that the Navy and Air Force have amply demonstrated their ability to wipe out a target list in all but the most heavily-defended airspace (and even "heavily defended" airspace becomes pretty rapidly UNdefended after a few volleys of cruise missiles and sorties by B-2 and F-117 aircraft). I'd wager that, if we so chose, Iran's military and industrial capacity would be reduced to near zero within a few weeks of a vigorous air campaign.

Billy Mitchell, Hap Arnold, Tooey Spaatz and Curt LeMay are smiling right now.

docjim505,
I'm hoping that we skip the industrial infrastructure and just focus on the Iranian Military. I’d like to see a full recovery in Iran very quickly following the over-throw. The armed revolutionaries that we have already contacted, armed and trained will be able to govern more easily following the destruction of the current regime if they have an economy.

Isn't Bush set to address the nation t'marra nite?

Ah, I guess he could wish everybody a happy Rama-Dama-Ding-Dong?

There's also a funny note up at DRUDGE, that if Bush dares nominate Ted Olsen, the loonies in the senate are threatening to fight the nomination.

GOOD!

T'marra nite.

Bush's move.

Let's watch, together. Now, that I learned my favorite sites following DC with LIVE ACTION reports.

Will I be disappointed if it's business as usual for the President? If he thanks Petraeus; but then let's the topic go?

Well, Bush has got to play the "replacement for Gonzales" card. And, it seems both the New Yuk Times, and Harry Reid are desperate.

What are they gonna do? Seeth? So many Americans now have seen Rage Boy, that the whole schtick is becoming "old hat."

Saying "Iran" is like saying "The Jews"?

Unbelievable statement, that, and completely indefensible. The commenter speculates that perhaps rogue elements within Iran may be at fault, thus excusing the government's responsibility.

There is, of course, no evidence provided by the commenter that any such rogue elements exist, with either the intention or the capacity to mount rocket attacks into the sovereign territory of Iraq. The commenter also fails to explain why it would be any less the responsibility of the government of Iran to account for the actions of such elements whether or not their activities were sanctioned or approved by that government in advance.

Hostile action launched from the sovereign territory of one nation-state against that of another is the responsibility of the offending state under international law. There is no legal justification to support a defense of "we didn't know" or "it wasn't us". Iran's government is responsible for actions that occur on its soil.

As for the "Jews"? There is no nation-state by that name anywhere on earth. The term "Jew" refers to "a person belonging to the worldwide group claiming descent from Jacob (or converted to it) and connected by cultural or religious ties."

Jazz said:
With the constant reports of how overextended our forces are already in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we to seriousl considering launching a *third* war right now in the middle east? Remember also that Iran has a lot more friends than Iraq did (having been virtually isolated for quite some time when we went in.) And some of these friends are either powerful or influential in the global theatre, including Germany just to name one.

You all may want to rethink the cowboy mentality on this one.

Eric says:
Jazz, you underestimate our power and our ability to project force. Also, I'm not aware of Germany being close with Iran. Russia on the other hand is, and they seem to have a bone to pick with us. I say, It's on.

Consider the cause of cut-n-run strategy by the Dems, and think of it like you would buying a popular stock. Right now the Dems have bought CNR "Cut-n-run" inc. to the exclusion of all else in their portfolio. Because their friends in Moveon.org and other Left wing contributors have been saying for awhile, "This stock is going to quadruple!" and the Dems have listened.

But the inherent risk of all this "buying" is the actual value of the company itself. Can CNR deliver? It all comes down to future actions which will make CNR more or less valuable. If the Iraqi govt implodes, Sunnis and Shia attack each other, the stock will continue to rise. But what if things continue to improve?

Like all stocks, CNR is at risk of the short selling Republicans, who are selling this stock "short" betting that things will indeed get better. AND if a "Lawsuit" against CNR occurs due to corruption ala the Iranian govt, well that will be one of the signals that will doom this stock.

Ok, so far you must understand my analogy. The performance of General Petraeus, who did admirably despite constant and infantile sniping by many Dem Senators, including Hillary, has led many to understand that CNR might not be as good as it might have been thought. Now we are finally seeing the Bush Administration via Petraeus fight back using actual proof that Iran is fighting a proxy war against the US and Iraq.

Doubt is the key. At some point if things improve CNR will plummet and many Dems will start to "Sell". Once "selling" begins, CNR may collapse precipitously, with most jumping ship to be on the "winning" or at least not the losing side.

This is what the Democrats fear--success.
The very balance of their credibility and future truly ride on our defeat. And this is not a good position to be in.

Jazz,

Iran is target rich. That’s where we do our best work. Iraq was target poor following gulf1 (because we destroyed every target in one week.)

I’ve heard rumors that we have developed a 3000 sortie 24 hour first strike which includes the sinking of all Iranian Naval vessels (almost 100 units,) the destruction of their entire Air-Force, and basically, the elimination of all radar and military communications as well as the offensive nuclear sits. To put this in perspective, Gulf 1 was a 2000 sortie 24 hour first strike.

Israel just flew into Syria to test the new Russian Super ant-stealth missiles – turns out they don’t work against our jamming. Israel didn’t risk the lives of several pilots for nothing – they were doing us the gracious favor of testing the system that is now in Iran.

It’s going to happen. I’m not being a cowboy. I’m following the clues.

Jazz,

Tomorrow, the President will discuss Iran, and what they are doing. He will issue an ultimatum. In the next weeks, he will schedule a diplomatic tour of the Middle East (already being said to be over-due -- a subterfuge.) During his tour, he will gain the support of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Omar, forming a coalition that may also include Australia, England, France, and your friend Germany. The purpose of the coalition will be to neutralize Iran.

U.N Security Council = US, England, France, Russia and China. France is on board.

Bush has no worry of re-election and he’s more concerned about doing what is right than helping Fred Thomson. Hillary lost her Democrat base yesterday when she failed to gradually admit that Petraus was making a good point. She lost my vote yesterday – It will go to the Republican (I am a Democrat – one of the 73% from the poll.) Ultimately, the strike against Iran will dramatically improve the operation in Iraq and will speed the end to the overall battle. Failing to make this connection will extend the war – they already know that.

I’ve been through this a couple of time in my life and I’m telling you – I can smell it. It’s brewing. First strike is coming.

as a former Marine the only proper response is:

"LOCK AND LOAD ON THE FIRING LINE, SHOOTERS..."

We need HOW MUCH MORE casis belli before we respond??

I'm hoping that we skip the industrial infrastructure and just focus on the Iranian Military.

Would the Iranian Presidential Palace and where-ever the Mullahs lay their weary heads at night fall under the heading of "infrastructure" or "military"?

Personally, I'd make up a new heading of "infected boil that seriously needs to be lanced for the sake of the rest of the world-body".

And, BTW, I don't think we're as over-extended as Jazz is claiming. Sounds like leftist caterwauling to me: "We can't do ANYthing because if we do, something bad MIGHT happen!!!"

I think all you happy cowboys are missing Jazz's most salient point.

You may choose to attack with Air strikes, but unlike air strikes in the past, Iran has many, many American targets of opportunity just over the border in Iraq, conveniently enough.

NahnCee,
the Iranian Presidential Palace and where-ever the Mullahs = military. The nuclear plants = military.

Jazz is a puss -- I agree.

(This is my once in a month profanity. No further profanity until 10/12/07.)

filistro:
I think all you happy cowboys are missing Jazz's most salient point.
You may choose to attack with Air strikes, but unlike air strikes in the past, Iran has many, many American targets of opportunity just over the border in Iraq, conveniently enough.

Eric:
I think the Iraqis might have something to say about that. Also, the Iranians don't have the ability to fight two theaters. In fact, I doubt they have the ability to fight one.

filistro:
I think all you happy cowboys are missing Jazz's most salient point.
You may choose to attack with Air strikes, but unlike air strikes in the past, Iran has many, many American targets of opportunity just over the border in Iraq, conveniently enough.

Eric:
Actually, that would work dramatically in our favor. That would solidify the Iraqi nationalism that we have been looking for.

Eric... your comments are mind-bogglingly jejune.

filistro:

If they don't have air superiority (we will have air supremacy, i.e., only our side will be in the air), they won't be able to get to those "targets of opportunity". Small groups may be able to infiltrate, but they won't be able to do any real damage. Large groups will just be commiting suicide (see Afganistan: Taliban at room temperature).

I expect we will destroy their armor, air force and navy, and sieze their oil platforms. Blockading them from the Strait of Hormuz allows them no opportunity to sell their oil (I think we've been lining up alternative sources of oil for China, to ensure they won't interfere). If we go for decapitation strikes as well, so much the better.

Jazz had a salient point? I wasn't able to get past his/her first absurd one.

In any event, I predict there will be no overt military action against Iran.

Such an action might be exactly what the Mullahs need right now. It is, I think, important to remember that ordinary Iranians are as nationalistic as we are.

SF operations? About that I make no predictions.

Eric said:
Jazz is a puss -- I agree.

Eric then said:
so is filistro

This does not count as an additional profanity because all I said was "so is Filistro." Next profanity is still scheduled for 10/12/07. Also, I'm a Democrat and you have all said that I'm allowed to change the rules whenever I want. You may have been sarcastic, but I take it literally.

Jack, it sounds awfully risky to me.

All those big juicy US military bases, sprawling just miles away from the target country. That would have to be one hell of a "first strike" to avoid taking a few thousand American soldiers out in the first few days.

Oh, filistro, shades of the Algonquin Round Table. Now, for extra credit, has *neuresthenic* ever been used in a song?

Sorry, filistro, I'm a slowpoke tonight. I was referencing *jejune* with my previous post.

jejune...

I give up. You're too smart for me. That's a big fancy word and I can't argue with that word. Filistro, do you have a "word per day calendar?" Because I have to tell you that I am actually intimidated by your use of the word “jejune...”

I hope that I never have to do a word battle with you. You would likely win,

By the way, do you have a point that you would like to make?

Iran seized the U.S. embassy in 1979 and prolonged our countires apparent impotency for 444 days. Several reports indicate Ahmadinejad the current Iranian president was one of the hostage takers.

According to Robert Baer Iran sponsored Hizbullah was responsible for the Beirut Barracks bombings which killed 300 noble Mairnes in 1983. Hizbullah was also linked to the Khobar tower bombings as detailed in a June 2001 US indictment.

In 1999 Yossef Bodansky wrote a prophetic book "Osama the Man who decalred War on America" in which he linked Iran-Hizbullah and Osama bin Laden thru an Iranian operative Imad Mugniyah.

Janes Defense reported an Israeli inteligence source who linked Mugniyah to the 911 attacks.

The 911 Commsion Report states that Mugniyah is an Hizbollah operaitve.

Ken Timmerman reported details from some 75 U.S. inteligence reports delivered to the 911 Commision. The reports say that in October and November 2000 Mugniyah coordinated travel for eight to ten of the "muscle hijackers"

We've been at War with Iran since 1979. It is time we start fighting back.

Joseph Kempton

jack...

a.) neurAsthenic

b.) yes:

Prideless you live.
Believing yourself an accomplished being.
Frustration and sorrow,
your deeds beckon,
have become a towering inferno.
That's why I feel so neurasthenic.

Joseph Kempton = right!

Well done sir. It's time to stop being stung by this mosquito that is called Iran. Next year, they will be a hornet.

umm, when did the United States military become a "target of opportunity". They have guns and stuff ya know? I bet the soldiers in Iraq are saying "bring it on" to an Iranian "response", not nervously checking for a bomb shelter. Why do libs always underestimate the American fighting soldier??

Eric, sorry. I'm feeling a bit iconclastic tonight, and your "No, really, I'm a i>" shtick made you a target of opportunity.

Now if I have one more drink I may just take on Carol Herman and her constant use of "Irak," "Bonkeys," "New Yuk Times," "Floriduh," and other richly original witticisms that are evry bit as funny as fingernails on a chalkboard.

Any speculation on what the price of oil would reach if we attacked Iran and how it would effect the world economy?

Gulf War 1. Gulf War 2. Iran-Iraq war. All Arab-Israeli wars. See above. Then explain why whenever we are discussing bombing some Arabs, the lefties go on about how we need to fear their military wrath and prowess? Note to tactically inept observers: if it doesn't involve sniping or bomb throwing in a time of relative peace, no Arab military has ever shown any particular level of competence, in the air or on the ground. Lets take Iran out of the game, now.

filistro,

Jujune....that's not what your sister was saying last night.

"No, really, I'm a Democrat!" shtick.

(Memo to self... Preview is your Friend.)

filistro:

Yes, it is risky. Our problem is we're looking at risk either way. Iran with nukes is just too awful to contemplate. At least since we invaded Iraq folks should realize that an ultimatum from Bush means that the hammer *will* drop if they don't shape up.

Filistro,

You mis-spelled iconoclastic.

filistro:

Go ahead and have that next drink. We can call a cab to take you home.

Filestro:
You misspelled Neurasthenia and you also misused the word.

By the way, truce. I'm drinking too.

Why, thank you Jack. I believe I will.

Now... where were we?

KW64
Any speculation on what the price of oil would reach if we attacked Iran and how it would effect the world economy?

Eric:
I'll speculate. No effect. Iran imports oil. It does not export.

Why, thank you Jack. I believe I will.

Now... where were we?

Filistro,

You were misspelling and misusing words. Please continue.

Eric, now that we're old drinking buddies I'll resist the urge to correct your risible fallacy regarding Iran's status as an oil exporter.

But... don't tempt me, okay? :-)

Eric:

Actually, filistro is correct (damn!). The guy who coined the word (George Miller Beard) spelled it *neurasthenia*. Although it's spelled *neuresthenia* in many places on the internet.

filistro, I'll bet you were a teachers pet, too.

"Then explain why whenever we are discussing bombing some Arabs..."

Respectfully, we are discussing, I believe, bombing some Persians...who are not Arabs...as an Iranian would tell you most emphatically should you make that mistake in the presence of one.

filistro:

Oh, Eric and I have got you now! Iran is an oil exporter (to China, among others), but a gasoline importer.

Phew... how did that gassy smell get in here? We were talking about OIL, weren't we?

Iran is the world's fourth largest exporter of oil.

No no Eric, Filistro is being polite but you must know that Iran is the world's 4th largest oil exporter...exporting not importing. We on the other hand are the world's no. 1 oil importer.

But on this subject:

"Saudi Arabia persuaded OPEC members to increase production for the first time in a year, seeking to reduce the record price of oil, over the objections of Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, Libya and Algeria.

Saudi Arabia, the group's biggest exporter, wanted to boost supplies after crude gained 28 percent this year to $78 a barrel, said Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani. The 500,000 barrel- a-day increase will be on top of actual production, according to Kuwait's acting oil minister, Mohammed Abdullah al-Aleem." (Bloomberg.com)

Hmmm....

I believe gasoline importing as to do with refinery capacity. Iran could build some refineries for itself but this might interfere with the far more useful nuclear weapons program.

filistro:

Sorry, I'm not keeping up. I thought you were the one who said Iran was an oil importer.

Getting serious here a minute - Since Iran is already rationing gasoline there are major dislocations to its economy. If we degrade their military enough to prevent serious attacks, the lack of gasoline imports, plus denial of their own oil resources, will have catastrophic consequences. There are already problems in transporting produce into the populated areas.

Yes, because when you are the world's 4th largest oil exporter, you REALLY NEED a nuclear program.

For heat, and light, and microwave popcorn, and stuff like that.

Of course.

Roger that, consider me corrected.

Iran produces about 3% of the worlds oil supply (CIA.com.) Interruption should not be an issue on world pricing. Even if it is, so be it.

Also, congratulations to Filistro on correct usage and spelling of "risible."

Sorry, Jack, I was responding to Bennett with that bit of nuclear sarcasm.

You're right about the gasoline, of course. But I bet the mullahs have a barrel or two squirreled away in case of emergencies.

Oil is a funny subject....

We are the largest user, and it's a fact that were going to hurt some day as a result. I bought a hybrid two months ago. I hope you all will do the same.

"For heat, and light, and microwave popcorn, and stuff like that."

Ah, yes. The Iranian nuclear power program. Clean energy. No ugly weapons.

Of course, probably not much in the way of microwave popcorn. Or microwaves. Or maybe even lightbulbs. Because, you know, people actually have to have jobs to buy that sort of stuff. But a small point, I agree.

But for those who fall asleep each night tucked in under the eagle's wings, it's safe to be wry and oh so witty.

Bennett, you misunderstand me. I was, in fact, questioning the sincerity of the unattractive little gentleman in the dinner jacket.

But while we're on the subject of Oil, this is hot off the presses...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?ex=1347336000&en=1f45f74c620d1c3c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Now, where is Del the Pineapple? We need him to point out that the source of this story is unreliable.

The world's unutilized oil production capacity is quite small. Distruption in flow from the Persian Gulf will have a significant price impact. Remember how it spiked in the Fall and Winter of 1990 and 1991 during the the aftermath of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent conflict. That price rise contributed to an economic downturn that hurt Bush the elder in the 1992 campaign.

Not that Bush the younger has to run again but with the housing bubble burst and the liquidity issues from the subprime mortgage debacle, an oil shock could tip the economy into a recession. The President's party suffers in elections during a recession. Might the Administration postpone such an action until after the 2008 election? Iran probably will not have achieved nuclear weapons status before then.

KW64,
Maybe. Maybe they will.

As for me. I'm hoping to see $100 oil soon. That is when I will know that the country will end its' dependance. I'm in favor of higher oil prices. I think the government could legislate these prices and expidite the ultimate solution.

We have the tech to become independant of these freaks.

Actually I was addressing it to all of us. We can laugh and amuse ourselves because we are here and not there (safe under the eagle's wings). And I join in heartily.

I will probably get hit for this and certainly I know that there are serious issues with Iran and I don't claim to have any answers.

But Iran is a country of 65,000,000 people. We hear sometimes how many of them are actually pro-American and how there are sporadic protests and rebellions and efforts to breathe free, efforts which are often squelched by the Mullahs' goon squads. Is any of it true? I don't know. I ask my Iranian friends and I am told yes, but they are here and not there. So I don't know. Are the people capable of changing things from within? Do they really want to? I don't know that either.

But it would be hard for me to accept the need to attack Iran in any meaningful way at what would have to be a signficant cost in civilian life unless we were sure, completely sure, that it is the only choice we have.

As anyone who reads here regularly knows, I support our country's efforts in Iraq. I do that mostly because we are there now and how we got there isn't that important to me anymore. I believe we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to do whatever is within our power to leave them, when we leave them, in a better state than they were when we got there.

I do not wish to incur a similar obligation to the Iranian people.

And with this, I will open the floor to some sort of attack on my view from someone somewhere I'm sure. I am strong, I can take it!

What Bennett said....

No attack from here Bennett.

I thought the original idea of supporting a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was to have a corrosive effect on the dictatorships nearby; as their people yearned for the freedoms of the people next door. This is particularly true for Iran because so many pilgrims wish to visit Iraq every year. Perhaps that is one reason why the Iranians have fought our success there so hard. They feared the policy might work.

However, nuclear weapons in Iran's hands could mean the time is not available to wait for nature to take its course and freedom to grow into Iran on its own. If we could get a real halt in the nuclear weapon program, I would live with arms being sent to Iraq because I think as Iraq gets stronger, it will largely be able to either stop it or make it painful for Iran as well. Unfortunately, there is no quit in Iran's program and Bush may have to act on his way out the door if a weak on security candidate wins in 2008.

If Rudy wins, Bush may just leave it to him to take care of.

filistro said,

I think all you happy cowboys are missing Jazz's most salient point.
You may choose to attack with Air strikes, but unlike air strikes in the past, Iran has many, many American targets of opportunity just over the border in Iraq, conveniently enough.

Which they happen to be trying to hit. This particular missile was intended to kill top commanders. When "senior officers" rush out to see what's happening, that's close!

We are already at war with Iran. Slide number two in Petraeus' presentation makes that quite clear -- the rounded rectangle positioned at an angle inside Iran along the common border with the words "lethal aid, training, funding" indicates that either Iran has lost control of its border with Iraq or that the flow of supplies is being done with their approval. The missile is just one more proof of this. Either way, we have no choice if the situation is to stabilize in Iraq than to respond.

I'm thinking the Iranians are going to wish they'd left well enough alone when that happens. Who says we are limited to just airstrikes? They are not the only people capable of making and handing out IEDs, sniper rifles, and missiles to proxies. Both the US and Iraqi governments have been quite forebearing to date concerning Iranian incursions in the north of Iraq. As I remember, Iran currently has the upper hand armaments wise in the north, and it wouldn't take much to change that rather dramatically.

We'll see. Until someone other than Iran acts here, it's all speculation.

"Respectfully, we are discussing, I believe, bombing some Persians...who are not Arabs...as an Iranian would tell you most emphatically should you make that mistake in the presence of one."

Minor correction - Iran is full of ethnic minorities - Persians are only about half.

According to the CIA;

Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

The Baloch, I believe, currently have there own little insurgency ongoing, but they have some ties to Al Qaeda so aren't a real obvious ally.

Is it time to mine the Kharg Island Oil Terminal yet?

Essucht, thanks for the info...in any event, not many Arabs!

In my (admittedly limited) experience, Iranians are proud of their Persian heritage and rather disdainful of Arabs, whom they view as barbarians in comparison.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, Iranians are proud of their Persian heritage and rather disdainful of Arabs, whom they view as barbarians in comparison.

I believe the reason for that is the Persian civilization that existed prior to the Arab/Muslim Empire.

Essentially, the Persian and Byzantine Roman Empires were two of the world greatest civilizations. The Arab tribes united under the flag of Jihad while the Persians and Romans fought an exhausting war.

The Arabs destroyed the former and devastated the latter - conquering 3 of the 5 centers of Christianity.

It's not surprising that "progressives" don't think we can destroy Iran's offensive military capabilities with one air campaign. The average "progressive" wouldn't know an A-10 from an asparagus, because studying weaponry and ordnance is "jejune."

(By the way, using the word "jejune" in conversation is astonishing jejune. There are less pretentious, self-satisfied ways to advertise one's massive intellect.)

As a cowboy, I'd like to point out that we recently retrofitted the B-2 stealth bomber to carry 80 JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) or two MOPs (Massive Ordnance Penetrators). Each B-2 is now as destructive as a whole bomber fleet. That doesn't count our B-52s, B-1s, F-117s, naval air assets, and the tens of thousands of cruise missiles we'd fire, too.

And guess what? Bombing Iran is exactly what we're going to do.

"U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan"

http://tinyurl.com/yw4mhz

The State Department has concluded that diplomacy has failed, and the only option left is military action. This isn't the Pentagon talking; this is the limp-wristed State Department. War is now guaranteed.

Petraeus said we ran the Qods Force out of Iraq, so it's unlikely that Iran will be able to launch any massive retaliatory attacks on our troops.

And don't worry about Israel. They have some surprises up their sleeve to deal with incoming missiles. We do, too, in the form of huge numbers of antimissile batteries and picket lines of ships in the Persian Gulf. The Arab states are well-defended, too.

I predict the air campaign will happen in the early spring.

The world needs a cowboy, and luckily we have one in the White House right now. We're going to have to make an example of Iran, which is too bad for them, but it'll bring us a few decades of breathing room. Besides, the mullahs are just begging for it.

To quote Psalm 7: "His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate."

Wars tend to spin out of control and spread if not contained - like iraq. People do stupid and unreasonable things in a war because there is no security.

If we bomb iran we will be spreading the war and the consequences could be worse than we can imagine.

It is easy to surmise when we are comfortable in the safety of our homes and are not worrying about bombs falling on us.

We have enough to do in stabalizing iraq - if we can. Let's not get distracted by iran.

Besides, our military knows how to handle iran because they have the best intelligence. What do we know about what iran is up to? I hope we are not getting our information from the media?

"To quote Psalm 7: "His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate."

Romans 12:19-21

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

There's a verse for every occasion.

Posted by Conrad | September 13, 2007 3:29 AM
Wars tend to spin out of control and spread if not contained - like iraq. People do stupid and unreasonable things in a war because there is no security.
If we bomb iran we will be spreading the war and the consequences could be worse than we can imagine.

As oppesed to what is already going on now? Maybe you missed the fact that Iran is currently engaged in a war on our forces in Iraq. As for the BS about big bases in Iraq for Iran to target well guess what Iran has zero power projection capability and if they try to move large land forces into Iraq to take us on they will die in large numbers because we will have air supremacy and their long range missles are a joke they are basically unguided they can be targeted to a large area but not a specific target. Let me make this clear Iran has zero, Nada, Zilch ability to do us any significant harm in Iraq that is why they use proxies like Muqi Sadr.

If the invasion and occupation of Iraq should have taught us anything, it is that wars have unintended consequences. Frankly, the world is delicate enough with needing another great shove off balance.

The lack of humility in those advocating the mass death of their fellow human beings is terrifying.

Options for dealing with Iran

A full scale ground invasion is not in the cards. That doesn't mean that the mullahs can sleep quietly though.

"Joseph Kempton = right!"

Ditto. Iran declared war on us in 1979, and the pusillanimous James Earl Carter failed to respond.

It is time.

We should begin with limited, covert incursions across the border, hitting supply routes and the camps training Iraqi insurgents and militias. Do it at night, and maintain formal deniability.

Meanwhile, issue an ultimatum: give up your nuclear-bomb program, stop meddling in Iraq, or suffer the consequences.

The consequence were well described by Tom W. above: air and naval attacks on military infrastructure, oil and gasoline production, shipping, and Iran's nuclear facilities.

While we're at it, take out the Damascus (Syria) airport, too. That's were a lot of the foreign suicide bombers come through.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Conrad:
"We have enough to do in stabalizing iraq - if we can. Let's not get distracted by iran."

Sorry, but it's getting increasingly difficult to ignore a regime that is actively delivering munitions that harm US & allied soldiers.

Iran sealed their fate when they decided that a chaotic Iraq is far more important than a stable and democratic Iraq.

And don't even get me started about their meddling with the Taliban.

The time has passed.

Iran is destabilizing Iraq via the Mahdi Army, Lebanon via Hezbollah, the Palestinian territories via Hamas, Afghanistan via the Taliban. In short, they are destabilizing the entire Middle East. They have killed hundreds of Americans in the Iraq war in addition to the Marines in Beirut. They have clearly earned the right to retaliation via international law and good old fashioned revenge. Its payback time.

That being said, an attack on Iran via air and naval assets has considerable risks and I agree with Filistro about the vulnerability of our bases to missile attack. There is also considerable risk to our naval assets as well not to mention the fact that the price of oil will skyrocket pushing the US into a recession. Iran has Chinese missile technology and can easily reach our bases if we can’t take them all out. Attacking Iran will be painful and US soldiers and sailors will die. We will not be able to get everything on a first strike as was demonstrated in Lebanon last summer.

The ultimate question is what are the costs vs. benefits. I believe that at this point the costs of attacking Iran are far less than the costs of doing nothing and that the regime in Iran has to be removed by whatever means necessary. They cannot be allowed to go nuclear and must not be allowed. I say this with a very heavy heart because I personally believe that thousands of US soldiers, sailors and airman will be killed in the opening days and tens of thousands of Iranians will be killed as well. This will be very ugly but unfortunately it has to be done.

Oldcrow wrote, "Let me make this clear Iran has zero, Nada, Zilch ability to do us any significant harm in Iraq. That is why they use proxies like Muqi Sadr." How do you know that? Have you been listening to Fox news?

I have no doubt that we have the capability and fire power to level Iran's infrastructure back to the stone age - but have you thought about the aftermath? How about another iraq?

Most of our military losses came after we won the ground assault in Iraq. Iraq has proven (in the middle east) that managing a conquered people is much more difficult than capturing them.

As hard to take as it is for some armchair tacticians, I think we are in a much better position in Iraq to manage our difficulties with Iran by not attacking them, but rather defending the border with them.

I do not think that the Iranian people in general want war with the United States, but if we bomb them back into the stone age, they may take a different outlook.

Rafar,

If World War II has taught us anything, it's that early failure to forcefully confront evil has terrible consequences.

Mass death? Which post advocates it?

essucht,

Didn't the wars between the Persians and the Romans precede Islam by about a century?

Eric,

Are you issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal along with your Declaration of War? Can I have a few?

Tim & Conrad,

Cut the bullshit - seriously.

Thousands of American lives lost in the opening stages? A repeat of Iraq? What drama classes are you guys taking?

Any strike on Iran will be limited to naval & air operations. Aside from SOCOM, there won't be American boots occupying Tehran.

Sorry to disappoint.

This is a completely different mission than Iraq. There will be no occupation and there will be no purple fingers.

Time to test out the F-22.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who call for an air and missile campaign..and no ground invasion. The whole problem with our approach to the Middle East is the idea of occupying and rebuilding. It is obvious that it is almost impossible to get these people to live peacefully..there is something fundamentally wrong with their culture that leads them to nothing but violence. You know darn well that if there was no Israel, and US troops were not within 3000 miles, they'd be killing and suicide bombing each other, split along national and ethnic and religious lines ad infinitum....is it possible that nearly all the rational ones saw this coming years ago and emigrated? Hmmm.... So our goal, and what should be the goal of the West, is to make sure the oil gets out and the terrorists cannot get funding and transport out to where they can threaten us. Nothing more. It is imperative to make sure that they don't have access to nuclear weapons. See the British method of rule when they were the stewards of the area... secure bases, and some squadrons of the RAF to bomb them when they got unruly. Something like this would work today. Oh, and yes, I am aware that Iranians are not Arabs...but I tend to use that term as shorthand for Muslims in the Middle East who are belligerent and threatening. It's shorter than saying Islamofascists every time...

' There is something fundamentally wrong with their culture that leads them to nothing but violence'
Are you still talking about Iran,because you could be describing the U.S.
It's ironic that you think that whilst debating bombing Iran.
The U.S has been using violence towards other countries for years.
It's you lot that thinks violence is the only way.
Spending billions to have a huge militry show's how aggressive you are.
Why do people on this site think it is o.k to kill thousands and thousand's of iranian's to try to make you feel 'safe'
Are lives equal?

Pebbles, I'm assuming you are English, using the phrase "you lot"? It's just that attitude that has made your people lose their empire and be overrun with Muslims. Once, the English had gumption..then they were brought down by socialists and their horrid invention, political correctness/multiculturalism. When other ideologies/cultures threaten a country, it has the right to remove that threat by whatever means it has the capabilities to do. Those that do not believe that, will simply be dissolved by those with greater will. Being nice only works if EVERYONE is nice. The best defense is being able to make aggressors realize that aggressing won't turn out very well for them. And accusing the US of being militaristic and aggressive is very hip, but if that was REALLY the truth...wellllll...wouldn't the whole world already be our subjects? Do a little digging around on the internet, look into comparative armed forces sizes and quality, and think about it. :)

jaeger51,
i really hope you are in the minority with your comments in your country.
In a few lines you have displayed the reason's why the U.S is loathed and isolated from the world.
The 'ugly american' is not a stero-type.
Your lack of knowledge and insight into British history and politic's makes you sound petty and childish.
'Dissolved by those with greater will'
That could of come out of Hitlers mouth. You yanks are guilty of fraud.
We bought into that 'american dream','brave','free','human rights','justice for all'.
The mask has slipped off and we can see the real america-and it is not a pretty sight.
I have lost a nephew in iraq fighting'shoulder to shoulder' with our closest allie.He had 'gumption' believe me.
Your country does not deserve his sacrifice.My sister is horrified by your lack of respect and arrogance towards anyone that disagree's.
What's the point of me writing this your mind is closed.